INDEX

WITNESS TESTIMONY
10
32
34
: EXHIBITS ;
EXHIBIT NUMBER MARKED AND RECEIVED

Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10 44



22

conducted, and it really has some interesting aspects
that I think we need to get from this. The first one I
want to look to is and it talks about how
they put it into the feeder. It says, scooping orange
oxide into Omega feed hopper. Dust-foe respirator worn.
In other words, this guy was wearing a respirator as he
was putting this dust into it.

Now, this is 1957 and they're dealing with

nuclear material. Today, if you were dealing with

10

11

12

nuclear material, I would suspect you would have ona
complete hazmat outfit. So it shows that these people

were not trained or understood the nature of the material

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that they have.

But as we go through this, I want you to ask
this question: We're in 1957, this is the era of
McCarthy; nuclear -- we were involved in a nuclear
confrontation with the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons
were a big deal. It was very secret. As we go through
this, ask yourself, did these men really know what they
were doing? They may have been working with somethirg
called orange oxide, but was that a chemical thac some
company like Dow Chemical may use to make paint. Were
they really told the nature of the material thet they

were using?

And as we read through this witness, this



18

initiation or some sort of word here is unlikely. So
apparently he didn't think that the dust that was
distributed during the course of this activity was of any
consequence.

Now, my sister brought up this issue of the
barrel here -- and I'll address this now -- but in the
Battelle Report they said that the quantity was one to

two barrels.

I want to emphasize that there were -- they

10

11

12

have a guesstimate here of 100 percent. They don't know

if it was one barrel or they don't know if it was two

barrels.

130

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Now, what are we talking about? We're tal ing
about nuclear powder, radioactive material, okay? Now,

granted, this was 1956.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE ‘56, yes.

Okay.

And, today, if somebody said to you, well, you
know, we had a test with nuclear powder and we don't know
if we had one barrel or two barrels, I think people would
be pretty upset. Okay?

So if you're going to say that current policies
apply, and under current policies I think we begin to see
that if we applied the current policies to what they did

back in 1956, we're going to have some real problems with



27

machine, a component from the machine, covered with
orange oxide, put down a sheet of paper and set it on
there and then cleaned it off, would or would not some
residual nuclear powder be on that floor?

Okay. Chipping and vacuuming loose material
from wings, teeth. No respirator worn. Now, if you were
told here, we're going to have you work with orange
oxide, a nuclear material, would you take off your

respirator if that's all you had to wear? Did these men

10

12

12

clearly appreciate what they were working with, or was

that a national secret?

Okay, cleaning barrel with pneumatic

“13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

powered circular brush; dust-foe respirator and goggles _
were worn.

Now, okay. So they were cleaning it out with
this brush, spinning brush cleaning, blowing the stuff

around, getting it off of that because it's caked onto

this machine.

Okay, sample of exhaust from Spencer
vacuum which wa: ted into room.

So they took a sample of what was, we do have
some kind of dust sample of what was coming out of tre
vacuum cleaner they were using.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE GRABER: All right.

Okay. a rather



WTHE SAGINAW wEWs

The U.S. Department of Energy will look
into reports that hundreds of workers at two
lefunct Saginaw factories suffered exposure
to dangerous levels of tadioactive chemicals,
‘he agency today was to release details
from ‘documents that indicate employees at,
the former Baker Perkins Ine. and Mitts &
Merril} Inc.,in the 1950s Possibly were poi-
Soned;. \while ‘nearby air, ground and water
Were. potentially contaminated.

Govertiment officials Jhired’ the two com-
panies and hundreds of othérs nationwide to
Proeds laterials’for nuclear Weapons.

Developers want: to use; the. old Mitts and

Merrill site to build a $5.5 million medical
building, and it is unclear how Wednesday's
disclosure would affect the project,

that some of the com-

and dumped toxic waste into -ground and
water, spokesman Thomas Welch said.

The companies handled Substances such
as_uranium, . thorium, polonium, beryllium
and other toxic materials, High levels of ex-
posure are linked to cancer, lelikemia,-lym-
phoma and kidney and re: piratory illnesses,

“Tt will take some lime, but. we have ‘a
these sites,” Welch

responsibility to clean
said, , :
Department 6f Energy officialg declassified

ATTACHMENT B

Thursc
September 7

50¢

ngs

+ Saint Malye
Hospital,
OR

Blooc
neede

SCOTT Davis
THE SAGINAW NEWS
and THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

IT site of defunct factories

A Summer-long blood drou;

DAN JACALONE / THE

records and identified 309 companies that
apparently helped develop nuclear weapons.

Were shuttered in 1983.
Genesee. Packaging Tne. later

the site, but’ has ceased operation, The ‘city

now owns thé land,

PLEASE sie NUGLEAR aoe

tinuing into September, but ;
gan officials say the start of s
help replenish supplies,
Saginaw Valley Blood Prog
Tittabawassee, this week is
its annual effort to visit all pi
. Schools in Saginaw County in.
for donors among students, ‘
this week is at Arthur Hill Hig
“We're always looking for ne
Said Gail M. Manntz, ditector
resources for the agency. “The
fs critical. We're calling people
ing them to come into the blood
The shortage Spans the Midy
Rumme! communications ..lir

SAGINAW NEWS,

moved: into



Pomery Cancer tt | P | secundor Ganca#ibesonta 2

[Cancer Fy istocyse iymohom: NA ‘NA NA NA
[Date of agro 1860 WA WA. WA WAL
[EXPOSURE INFORMATION
‘umber of exposures

28

Exposure # Ks [ Raciston Te | | Parameier2 |

1 1956 ROC ‘alpha Lagromal ‘001

z 357 howe aha Cogaacmal 0300

2 1958 chore signa Tagoormal 0384

‘ 1988 chronic alpha Tognonmal 0.388

5 880 hone ‘siphe. Teprormal [bez

a 181 ehrone aloha — [~~ Logonnat 043.

7 7982 eee alpha Tognormal Oas2

5 71363 chwon aloha Lagoormal 04g?

a 7868 ironic ala Cognarmar 0.480

70, 1385 chron “aloha Cagnormal ‘oaee

i 1368. von ‘alpha Leqnormat — Oa56.

2 i567 chronic “aha Lognormal ‘0500.

3 "68 won alpha Lognonal 0506

ts 1989 ‘rong “aiphe Lognarmal | 0.505,

1 1870 MONE alpha Lognormat O50t

ie 1971 che 2 al 0505.

aT 172 erratic abt Tognorinal O50

18. 1973 hvorie ‘ich Togoormal 0456

cc 1574 chronic aloha Cagrormat 34st

20, 187. chronic aipha: Lognommal 0488

zt 1976 chronic igha: Lognonmal 0880

a sar chronic aipia Lopnormal Bara

Bs 1878 ‘chronic alpha Cagnoenel 0.885

2 1378 hrm aipba Lognormat 457

Bs 4960 conic aipha Lognerral Oza

2 1358 chronic fotons E=20.260%a —~Lognormal 0B7S

Ea 758 ‘2eute__— hotons £=80-250kd Norms] ‘025

2 [1888 | "acute tons 230-250 Normal 2085.
(OTHER ADVANCED FEATURES

ie

- Page 8 of 8


37

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.

As I mentioned earlier, uranium
particles stay internally lodged for considerable amounts
of time. The diagram shows the various paths to the
damaging particles within the body.

Once the particles have entered the human body,
via ingestion or inhalation, it is circulating in the
blood system or retained in the lung tissues or both.

The particles of the lung can enter the lymph nodes and

10
11

12

remain indefinitely.

As a report that I had from)

(ph). He is a consultant with the Dose Reconstruction

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

project, stated, quote: "The lymphatic system can be
assured to spread wildly throughout the body, and
although concentrated in the chest and abdomen, it has
components throughout the body, thus showing that the
lymphatic system circulates the blood and components in
the human body," unquote.

Showing that my father had one of the special
cohort cancers too within the lymphatic systems, I would
like to request that the case be re-evaluated to inciude
the lung model. This was based upon evidence of one
claim, one paid claim to the Baker Perkins, which I have

a copy to view.

This is dated June 3rd, 2005 where this was one



35

The report of 2-11 clearly

1
2 stated Mr. Brennan was employed at Baker Perkins as a
3. grinder, unlike the report of 9-14 that stated Mr.

4 Brennan's position was unknown. I'd just like to have

5 that clarified into the record.

6 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE| Okay.

7 Was he a grinder?

8 | Yes.

9 | He worked in the grinding
10 room which was the mill room. That's where they ran the
11 mixers and that.

12 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE | Okay.

13° a Okay. : :

14 | So he was running the

15 mixers.

16 | And then another inconsistency,

17° I guess, I would like that on the record, that the report
18 of 9-14-07 clearly stated that was exposed to
19 an internal and external sources of radiation during his

20 employment at Baker Perkins.

21 The report of 9-14-07 does not include the

22 exposure dates from 1956 to 1980, that was tne time of

23 his diagnosis, which is a 24 year time frame. unlike che

24 one year of the internal exposures from 1-1-56 to 12-31-

25

56.



1 In other words, they're designed only for one

2 particular way of doing things, and when you add a

3 variable to it, it does, the model is no longer a valid

4 model.
5 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE ¢ Okay.
6 And I have issues

7 mathematically on how this worked out that it is not
8 really sound scientifically, and I haven't spent the time

9 doing the proof on it, but I believe I would -- I could

10 do that very easily in a period of time.

11 So I think that needs to be looked at much more

carefully than -- I think they also know that. I think

there's been some papers written on that recently.

14 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

15 Let me just do my little spiel to get these in
16 the record. We're marking Exhibits.

17 The first Exhibit is the photo of the machine
18 at Baker Perkins.

19 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Exhibit No. 2
20 starts out with a letter to ——————jated March 4th,
21 2008. It's the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction from 2007.

22 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Exhibit No. 3

23 is from -- is the cover letter information transmittal

24 date January 10th, 2002, td

25 Right. ThatTMs a cover



45

received into evidence.)
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE And if there's
no other testimony to be given, I will close the record.

And it's now 10:15 a.m., and the hearing is

closed.

(Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the hearing in the

above-entitled matter was closed.)

10

iL

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



33

equipment similar to this called Dawn Foods. If you had

a roll or a bun this morning at your motel where you

stayed, it probably was produced by them. In that area

they mix flour every day. They do an extreme method of

cleaning to keep that material out of the air; large

vacuum systems which were not in place back in the 50s.
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.

Also the type of

respirators that were used at that time are not what we

10

az

12

see today. Even the paper masks I think that we have
that are NIOSH are rated are much better, the ones that

we can buy at K-Mart or Meijer's, are much better than

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

what you have back at that “time. “So when they talk about”
what people wore as protective clothing, they never
talked about any garments. The clothes that these
gentlemen wore while they were working in the facility
went home with them.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Uh-huh.

They were not washed or
cleaned at that facility. The boots that they wore with
this material all over the floor when they were steam
cleaning, and remember the amount of water tnet's
generated with steam cleaning, it's all throughout their

clothes, soaked into their socks, went home with them.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.



November 7th, 1948 to July 12th, 1968 from Social
Security Administration earning statements.
You submitted copies of medical records

including a September 2nd, 1980 consultant's report from

referencing a

biopsy found to be mixed histiocytic lymphocytic diffuse

lymphoma .

You also submitted a pathology report dated

August 26th, 1980, which formed the basis of the cancer

10

11

12

diagnosis.

You also submitted a copy of you

death certificate, which showed that he died on January

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1st, 1982 of systemic histiocytic lymphoma. And we also.
received birth certificates from all of you showing that
the Employee was your father.

The Cleveland District Office forwarded your
claim file information to the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, which I'll refer to as
NIOSH, to reconstruct the radiation dose that your father
received in the course of his employment for his cancer.

The District Office undertook this ection
pursuant to the instructions set out in the ceyulations
governing the Act.

The Act and the implementing regulations

mandate that when a covered Employee establishes a cancer


23

document that tells us how these men were handling this
material, we have to ask ourselves, were they really told
this or was this a Federal secret? And the men operating
had no clue as to the material they were using. We don't
know this today, but as we look at the way in which they
handled it, would a reasonable person have handled
nuclear materials in the way that this witness said they
did?

Let's go through this. Okay, so we see now

10

12

12

they're scooping it in, they are wearing a respirator.

In this is after one, two, three, four,

five, six, batches were put into this. The observer

“13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

makes this comment: the operator was very careful in
scooping material from the drum to the hopper. However,
no matter how careful, the scooping produces a very fine,
barely visible dust which disperses in the air around the
machine.

Okay? So what we're taking is dust being
shoved into a machine by an operator, and the air, and
it's being dispersed into the air. Let me remind you

that when we get to cleaning, there's cleaning of

machines but there's no record anywhere that t 2y cleaned
the floors, the walls, the ceilings, or other equipment:,

in this Wal-Mart box factory. Okay?

in KO-kneader area

Let's move on. Now,



Summary

. was exposed to internal and external sources of radiation during his

employment at Baker-Perkins Company resulting in a total dose to the lymphatic tissue of
11.757 rem . The reported dose is an estimate of occupational radiation dose

which will support claim determination. The attachment contains the dose reconstruction
summary sheet that will be used by the Department of Labor to make the final probability of

causation determination of the claim.
References

1. 42 CFR 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal
Register/Vol.67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22314.

2. 42 CFR 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule,
Federal Register/Vol.67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22296.

3. ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), ORAUT-OTIB-0005, Technical
Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP
Model Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev 02 PC-1, February 10, 2006.

A. NIOSH, (2006) External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev 2, OCAS-
IG-001, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

5. NIOSH, (2002) Internal Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev 0, OCAS-
IG-002, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

6. Battelle, Battelle-TBD-6001, Site Profile for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined
Uranium and Thorium, Rev 0, June 15, 2007, Appendix P- Baker-Perkins, Rev 0,
September 14, 2007.

7. ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical
Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-
Ray Procedures, Rev 03 PC-1, December 21, 2005.

8. ACJ Associates, Inc., (2004), User Manual for IMBA Expert, OCAS-Edition, ACI
Associates, Richland, Washington.

9.  SBNES Oak Ridge, Inc. (2003), User’s Guide for the Interactive RadioEpidemiological
Program (NIOSH-IREP), January 15.

Pege 7 of 8


) .

ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET
ANALYTICAL DEPT, ~ HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION

N® 8537"

&
1956 Industrial Hygiene or Medical Dept. ; : Analytical Chemistry Section:
1. Hegp 833 Sample Nos___ Dato Collected_5/14 by CES "Route toC#S Date Received__5-21-56 by__Lab
Location BAKER=PERKINS CO. Type of Sample.ndit_dust——Anclyzed for F Alphacell Date Reported 5-22-55 by __ Ma
Remarks SAGINAW, MICHIGAN U Beta} Method of Analysin_Alph® sointiliation
_ Mixing tents conducted in Bide. 15 Caberatery hide.) No, Ra opunter 2 by Sa.
Oi pH Counting Dato: .
Be Th BKGD__»27_o/min GEO_40K_
ee SET SS
Sample No. Hour Sample Description R T 9 Count | Time Coin. PVAYLS
6900 3237 _iGA Background sample collected in Koe 02. ate) 2. L 1fs30_ | 0019. 2
Kneader area prior to opening or
processing of any material,
6901 1328 _|GA Same as 6900 202 10 22 14 16 0066 12
6902 1500°_|B2 Scooping orange oxide into Omega feed: | .02 3.5 | .07 320 0.29 110.07 5616
hopper, Dust-foe respirator. worn,
6903 BZ Same as 6902 202 3.5 207 | 32 Oe97 Ra TR. 1869.
6904 BZ Same as 6902 202 3.5 | .07 | ego 2.32 276 e6_| 14,061
6905 GA KowKneader area during filling of 02 10 22 32 Os21 162297 | 2724
feed hopper.
‘The operator was very careful in scooping| materjial from the
drum to the hopper, Nowever, no matter hol careful, the
scooping produces a very fine, barely viskble dist which
disperses in'the air around the machine, |
|
DISTRIBUTIONS

JeANALYTICAL LABORATORY OLPARTMENT (RECORD COFY)
24NOUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

NLO- HOS. 7A (2.2.86)

3.MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.

4-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION


.NOV, 22.2885 43:11PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 Sa@2 1375 NO. 452 PLS

NIOSH ID# Social Security #
Lowe aku

Intro’ tion

The Energy Employees Occupational IlIness Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA), Executive Order No. 13179 and the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule

(42 CFR 82)

Covered Employee

EEOICPA established a compensation program to provide a lump sum payment of $150,000 and
medical benefits as compensation to covered employees suffering from designated illnesses
incurred as a result of their exposure to ionizing radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the
performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its vendors, contractors, and
subcontractors. This legislation also provided for payment of compensation to certain survivors
of these covered employees.

In Presidential Executive Order No, 13179, the President designated the U.S. Department of
Labor to administer this program for claims by current and former employees of nuclear
weapons production facilities and their survivors who seek compensation for cancers caused by
radiation exposures sustained in the performance of duty, The Executive Order also directed the
Department of Health and Human Services to estimate (reconstruct) the radiation doses received
by these employees. The Department of Labor uses the reconstructed radiation dose in
evaluating whether the employee's cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at
the facilities covered by REOICPA, To fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Department of
Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s
(NIOSH) Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) completes dose reconstructions
using the methods described in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule (42 CFR 82)! for the
Department of Labor’s use in making compensation decisions,

The Purpose of Radiation Dose Reconstruction

A radiation dose reconstruction is used to estimate the radiation dose received by the specific
organ(s) in which a worker developed cancer, particularly when radiation monitoring data are
unavailable, incomplete, or of poor quality. Even in instances when radiation dosimetry data are
available, they rarely specify dose to an organ and often are based on monitoring procedures that

do not meet modern standards,

The basic principle of dose reconstruction is to characterize the occupational radiation
environment to which a worker was exposed using available worker and/or workplace
monitoring information, In cases where radiation exposures in the workplace environment
cannot be fully characterized based on available data, default values based on reasonable
scientific assumptions are used as substitutes.

EEOICPA recognized that the process of estimating radiation doses would require dealing with
uncertainties and limited data and thus required that the government establish methods for
arriving at reasonable estimates of radiation dose received by an individual who was not
monitored or inadequately monitored for exposures to radiation, or for whom exposure records
are missing or incomplete. To the extent that the science and data involve uncertainties, these
uncertainties are typically handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the claimant.
NIOSH has used the best available science to develop the methods and guidelines for dose

Pago 2 0f8


: 1375 -
NOV, 22,2085 4:41PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 822 ATTACHMENT F

Form OCAS-1 OMS No. 0920-0530
Avgust 2002 ‘Exp, De S31/05
Statement by the Claimant Closing the Record on 2 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction

under the
Energy Employees Occupational Miness Compensation Program Act

q. Hy ,_, 4 Claimant under the Energy Employees Occupational Tness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), certify that ] have completed providing information to
the National Institute for Occupational Safery and Health (NIOSH) and its representatives
information relating to potential radiation doses incurred by’ 4 while under
the employment of DOE, a DOE contractor, or an Atomic Weapons Employer, In signing this

form, I also certify that I have read, understand, and agree with the following statements:

a) Tam nat aware of any additional information available to me that may be relevant
to NIOSH in completing a dose reconstruction to estimate the radiation doses

incurred by the employee as specified aboyz; aad,

b) T have reviewed the draft NIOSH dose reconstruction report and agree that it
identifies all of the relevant informetion I provided to NIOSH to complete the
dose reconstruction; and,

NIOSH should forward a final dose reconstruction report to the Department of
Labor (DOL), so that DOL can continue adjudication of my claim and produce a
recommended decision-to accept or reject my claim; and,

I understand that my opportunity to seek a review of the NIOSH dose
reconstruction occurs only if DOL were to produce a recommended decision to
deny my claim; and,

By signing this form, ¥ do NOT certify or imply that I agree with NIOSH
decisions indicated in the draft NIOSH dose reconstruction report concerning how
NIOSH has used or not used information ] have provided for the dose

Teconstruction; and,

) By signing this form, I do NOT certify or imply that I agree with the findings of
the NIOSH dose reconstniction.

ans -7° An 11 $9

Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation,
concealment of fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under
EEROICPA or who knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject
to civil or administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under
appropriate criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment ar both. I affirm that the
information provided on this form is accurate and tme.

Signature_ +e lo

. NIOSH ID: 91904


Wov.22.2085 4:12PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 882 1375 NU. 436 ree

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
we #o

decision, Final determinations are made by the _sartment of Labor based on standards
determined by EEOICPA and its implementing regulations.

Dose Reconstruction Overview

The Office of Compensation Analysis and Support has performed a dose reconstruction for

: Bat in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The Department of Labor (DOL) has verified
that bl _ worked at Baker-Perkins from April 1, 1954, through September 24, 1964.
It was also verified that: 44 U was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1964, Documentation
indicates that during this period, he was employed as a maintenance man and janitor, No
dosimetry or bioassay records could be found for 2+ V related to work by Baker-
Perkins for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, one of the predecessor agencies of the
present Department of Energy).

Baker-Perkins performed work for the AEC during 1956. Based on guidance in the Technical
Information Bulletin: IMBA Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by
ICD-9 Code,? dose to the lung was evaluated for potential exposure starting in 1956 until the
time of cancer diagnosis in 1964,

Based on the type of informationin; #& _ records and the general site information
gathered for Baker~Perkins, NIOSH was unable to specifically determine the radiation exposure
conditions for 4 case. In cases where this occurs, the final rule describing the
methods for dose reconstruction (42 C.F.R. pt, 82)! allows NIOSH to assume exposure condi-
tions that maximize the dose to the organ where the cancer originated, In order to complete this
dose reconstruction, NIOSH has used this large dose estimate. Information obtained through
additional research would not result in a higher intemal dose ta the organ where the cancer
originated, and may in fact lower the calculated dose to this organ.

It was determined that the internal dose due to one year of inhalation alone was of sufficient
magnitude to produce a probability of causation of 50% or greater. Thus, the cumulative lung
dose reported excludes the internal dose due to ingestion, and excludes the external doses due
to uranium metal, residual radioactivity, and the assumed annual diagnostic X-ray procedure.
Based on this-efficiency process, the estimated dose to the ling was 1047.385 rem from internal
exposure. In accordance with the provisions of 42 CFR 82.1 0(k),’ NIOSH has determined that
sufficient research and analysis have been conducted to consider this reconstruction complete.

Information Used

Organ dose calculations are based on information in the Internal Dose Reconstruction
Implementation Guideline.* The primary data source utilized for this dose reconstruction was
the Technical Basis Document: Technica! Basis for Estimating the Maximum Plausible Dose
to Workers at Atomic Wespons Employer Facilities,’ prepared for the EEOICPA project. It
presents the evaluation of information regarding the uranium handling work performed by
various atomic weapons employer (AWE) facilities for the AEC, Conservative (claimant-
favorable) values of breathable air concentrations, inhalation times, and uranium enrichment

Page 4 of 8




PROCEEDINGS

1
2 (9:20 a.m.)
3 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm ready whenever you
4 are.
5 All right.
6 I was going to go first and then
7 and then I guess Mr. -- _ will go next.
8 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.
9 Okay.
10 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Wait a minute.
11 You've got to read your
12 statement.
- “~y3. «7s HEARING REPRESENTATIVE ‘Tive got to
14 read my statement.
15 You've got to read your
16 statement.
17 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE And swear you
18 guys in.
19 Okay. Okay. That's right.
20 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE I have to swear
21 you all in first. ;
22 Getting ahead of ourselves
23 here.
24 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Exactly.
25 Exactly.



HEARING REPRESENTATIVE

10

11

12

Thank you very much.

statement that need to be corrected?

All right.

10

Did you hear any mistakes in the opening

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I know you don't agree with the Recommended

Decision, but do we have the information correct as you

see it?

correct,

that we

you.

Specifically do we have diagnosis dates

le

and do we have all of the cancers correct?

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Anything else

need? Employment dates? Okay.

So I'm pretty much going to turn this over ts

TESTIMONY

All right.

I'm going to start first.

And whac i'm going



Decision of a District Office.

While the hearing is informal and not governed
the Federal Rules of Evidence, I will administer an oath
or affirmation to every person providing testimony today.

As I understand, j

I will first review the history of your claim
as it appears in the written record. You may then

present testimony, argument, and any additional evidence

10

11

12

addressing the merits of your claim.

On July 28th, 2004, iled a claim

for benefits under the Act as the surviving child of

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

filed their

claims on September 7th, 2004.

At that time you identified systemic
histiocytic -- H-I-S-T-1-0-C-Y-T-I-C -- lymphoma as the
condition resulting from yous employment at an
atomic weapons employer facility.

You filed an Employment History, Form EE-3,
claiming that you was employed at Baker Perkins
Company in Saginaw, Michigan from November 7th, 1946 co
July 12th, 1968.

The Department of Energy could not verify the
employment, but the District Office was able to verify

that your father was employed by Baker Perkins from



a7

guidelines is considered remote. Okav?

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

Therefore, we recommend

that this site be eliminated for further consideration as
a candidate for remedial action under FUSRPA [sic] and
removed from the SRSUPRA [sic] considered site list.

So basically he concluded through this
telephone interview with a guy who started working there

20 years after the fact that this was a good cleanup,

10

ii

12

they cleaned the equipment up, and that only one or two
barrels was involved in this, and hey, no problems;

there's not a problem with it.

“13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

_ And also they weren't aware if
it was one or two barrels either.

Okay. I'm getting to that.

Now, he went on here, and this is his written
report where he talked about a survey of works once again

of test equipment.

So, once again, this was in the cleanup only of
the test equipment, all right?

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE All right.

Which is this mixer, okay?

And he concludes that, well, while there was a dispension
[sic] of dust is noted in small quantities involved ina

brief period of operation, this -- any residua.



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FINAL ADJUDICATION BRANCH

Michigan Works Bay Road Service Center
3875 Bay Road

Saginaw, Michigan 48603

Tuesday
July 22, 2008

The above-entitled matter came on for a
hearing, pursuant to notice at 9-23N am

BEFORE:



NOV.22.2895 4:11PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 822 1375 NO. 452 P.6

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

pa & Uwe LG
reconstruction. These methods have been revie Aand commented upon by the public,
inchading experts in the field of dose reconstruction, and the Presidentially-appointed Advisory

Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

How Radiation Doses Are Reconstructed

NIOSH reconstructs radiation doses by evaluating all available, appropriate data relevant to the
employee’s radiation exposure. Some examples of data that may be included in the dose
reconstruction include, but are not limited to, intemal dosimetry (such as results from urinalysis),
external dosimetry data (such as film badge readings), workplace monitoring data (such as air
sample results), workplace characterization data (such as type and amount of radioactive material -
processed), and descriptions of the type of work performed at the work location.

Although the specific methods used for each dose reconstruction may vary, after a claim has
been referred by the Department of Labor to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction, NIOSH typically .
requests the worker's personal radiation monitoring information from the Department of Energy.
Upon receipt of the requested information, at least one voluntary informational interview with
the claimant and/or survivors is conducted and a copy of the interview report is sent for review.
After all of the necessary and available information is gathered, a dose is estimated, using the
methods in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule. After a NIOSH health physicist reviews the
information, methods, and results, the claimant receives a draft copy of the dose reconstruction
report followed by a concluding interview, during which the claimant can add any additional
relevant information that may affect the dose reconstruction, If the claimant certifies that he/she
has completed providing information and that the record for dose reconstruction should be *
closed, a final dose reconstruction report is sent to the claimant, the Department of Labor, and

the Department of Energy.

As applied in the EROICPA, dose reconstructions must rely on information that can be
developed on a timely basis and on carefully stated assumptions. Therefore, the guiding
principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to ensure that the assumptions used are fair,
consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science, while ensuring that uncertainties in
the science and data are handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the claim when
feasible. When dose information is not available, is very limited, or the dose of record is very
low, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on reliable science,
documented experience, and relevant data, to complete a claimant’s dose reconstruction, In
other instances, NIOSH may not need to complete fully a dose reconstruction because a partial
dose reconstruction results in an estimated dose which produces a probability of causation of’

50% or greater.

How Radiation Dose Reconstructions Are Used in Final Compensation Determinations

The results of an employee’s dose reconstruction are used by the Department of Labor to
determine the probability that a worker's cancer was “at least as likely as not” due to his/her
occupational exposure to ionizing radiation during employment at a covered facility, Criteria and
guidelines for making this determination are established by EEOICPA and the Probability of
Causation Guidelines (42 CFR 81),? The dose reconstruction is not the final determination of a
claim, but rather an interim product that is used by the Department of Labor in making its final

Page 3 of 8


43

1 Just making sure.

2 That's the one from 2005?

3 Yes.

4 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE And that's

5 Exhibit No. 5.

6 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE xhibit No. 6

7 is the diagram that shows how ali on goes

8 through the system. That's Exhibit No. 6.

9 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Exhibit No. 7
10 is the Saginaw General Hospital consultation report dated
11 October 1st, 1981 on
12 HEARING an pRaS@TATTN Exhibit No. 9

~ “13 “is a consultation report from Saginaw General Hospital
14 dated December 2nd, 1981 on your father.
15 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE have a
16 couple more to go.
17 But in the meantime, while those are being
18 marked, what I will do is tell you a little bit about
19 what's going to happen from here.
20 As you know, we're being recorded, and these
21 proceedings are going to be transcribed, and as soon as I
22 get a copy of the transcript I will send a copy to each
23. of you. :
24 You'll have 20 days from that date to make any

25

corrections to the transcript, offer any comments to the



’ ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET

ANALYTICAL DEPT. — HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION

NO 8542

1956

Industrial Hygiene or Medical Dept.

Analytical Chemistry Section:

|, Higt B18 Sample Nos. 6

Date Collocted_5/15___by.

CES Route to__CBS.

Date, Recolved_B=22-f6

by_Lab
Demers SAGINAN, sneangAN of Sample_air dust Anélyzed for F Alphact || Date Reported_5=22-68 by Met.
Romarks SAGINAW, MICHIGAN U Beta Method of Ansys Automate alpha peagactic
No, Ra counter 2 : a: CIM
Oil pH Counting Data:
Be Th BKGD.213_ o/min GEO__ 46%
— = SSS
Sample No. Hour Sample Description [Rk T | Q Count! ‘Tima ohms ah Ad
6919 DZ Removing barrel from machine and 02 | 2 204 iv 14.44 1.05 82
placing on paper on floor for clean-
ing.
6920 Bz Chipping and vacuuming loose material! .02 | 2.5 | ,05 20 11.69 1.60 $9
from wings and teeth, No respirator
WOErN, :
6921 1331 ‘GA During decontamination of barrel and | .Q2 | 20 24 20 12.08 1.55 12
screw, ‘
6922 GA Same_as 6921 [02 | 20 | .4 20 8,16 2x82 1a
6923 B2ZCleaning barrel with pneumatic 202 | 3 206 20 BoT3 $a20 S73.
bowexed_circular brush, Dust-foe _.
respirator and gopgles worn,
6924 BZ Cleaning screw with pneumatic brush, 202 | 5 es 20 1.13. 17289 556
Duse-foe respirator and goggles worn,
DISTRIBUTION:

L-ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DEPARTMENT (HECORD CoPY)
2-INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

NLO-HOS-758 (2.2.00)

2-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

A-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH & SAFETY DIVISION


15

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Was it an

empty -- like, were there lots of rooms or --

Well, I guess the best way

to explain it --
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE -- was it more

of a warehouse?

-- is if you've ever gone

into a Wal-Mart. You go into a Wal-Mart. There's this

enormous building and you have various departments.

10

11

12

There's a pharmacy department. There's an electronics
department. They're all housed as separate departments,

but they're all within the same building.

“430

14

is

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

~~" “" “HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

Okay. So it seems to me
that what we're looking at in the facility is a large
building.

And now this will come into importance here as

I begin to go through my comments on it.

Of course, the next thing we see is the letter
to assuring him that there is no need for
concerns at this time; that nothing bad happened here;

that there isn't any need for it.

And then I will turn you to and have you look
\

at the letter that prepared for Baker Perkins,

and he went on to say, well, I attached this memorandum



reconstruction. These methods have been reviewed and commented upon by the public,
including experts in the field of dose reconstruction, and the Presidentially-appointed Advisory

Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

How Radiation Doses Are Reconstructed

NIOSH reconstructs radiation doses by evaluating all available, appropriate data relevant to the
employee’s radiation exposure. Some examples of data that may be included in the dose
reconstruction include, but are not limited to, internal dosimetry (such as results from urinalysis),
external dosimetry data (such as film badge readings), workplace monitoring data (such as air
sample results), workplace characterization data (such as type and amount of radioactive material
processed), and descriptions of the type of work performed at the work location.

Although the specific methods used for each dose reconstruction may vary, after a claim has
been referred by the Department of Labor to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction, NIOSH typically
requests the worker’s personal radiation monitoring information from the Department of Energy.
Upon receipt of the requested information, at least one voluntary informational interview with
the claimant and/or survivors is conducted and a copy of the interview report is sent for review.
Afier all of the necessary and available information is gathered, a dose is estimated, using the
methods in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule, After a NIOSH health physicist reviews the
information, methods, and results, the claimant receives a draft copy of the dose reconstruction
report followed by a concluding interview, during which the claimant can add any additional
relevant information that may affect the dose reconstruction. If the claimant certifies that he/she
has completed providing information and that the record for dose reconstruction should be
closed, a final dose reconstruction report is sent to the claimant, the Department of Labor, and

the Department of Energy.

As applied in the EEOICPA, dose reconstructions must rely on information that can be
developed on a timely basis and on carefully stated assumptions. Therefore, the guiding
principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to ensure that the assumptions used are fair,
consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science, while ensuring that uncertainties in
the science and data are handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the claim when
feasible. When dose information is not available, is very limited, or the dose of record is very
low, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on reliable science,
documented experience, and relevant data, to complete a claimant’s dose reconstruction. In
other instances, NIOSH may not need to complete fully a dose reconstruction because a partial
dose reconstruction results in an estimated dose which produces a probability of causation of

50% or greater.

How Radiation Dose Reconstructions Are Used in Final Compensation Determinations
The results of an employee’s dose reconstruction are used by the Department of Labor to
determine the probability that a worker’s cancer was “at least as likely as not” due to his/her
occupational exposure to ionizing radiation during employment at a covered facility. Criteria and
guidelines for making this determination are established by EEOICPA and the Probability of
Causation Guidelines (42 CFR 81).? The dose reconstruction is not the final determination of a
claim, but rather an interim product that is used by the Department of Labor in making its final

Page 3 of 8


information in the Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Organ, External
Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code? The primary source of
information used for this dose reconstruction was the Technical Basis Document: Site Profiles
for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium Metals, Appendix P, Baker-

Perkins® prepared for the EEOICPA project.

In addition to the above information, the record of the computer assisted telephone interview was
reviewed carefully by the dose reconstructor. The information provided was considered in the

dose estimation process.

~
Dose Estimate
Fxternal Dose

External dose is received frorn radiation originating outside the body and is typically measured
by dosimetry wom on the body. Radiation dose measured on a film badge or a thermolumi-
nescent dosimeter (TLD) may have been delivered quickly (acute exposure) or slowly over
the period of time that the employee was exposed (chronic exposure). Because there is no
existing model that calculates external dose to the lymphatic tissue the external dose was
determined by using the dose calculated for the thyroid.’

Radiation Type, Energy, and Exposure Conditions
From the records, it was not possible to state whether or not was in a position to be

exposed to radioactive material. Thus, it was assumed that he was exposed to the source and
involved directly with the mixing operations. The source was assumed to be natural uranium,
with the most significant radiation for external exposure to the lymphatic tissue being photons

with energies between 30 and 250 keV.

External Dose Summary
external dose was calculated using exposure parameters (Table 1 below)

contained in Table P.3 of the technical basis document.’ Values were input into IREP with a
lognormal distribution in accordance with the technical basis document.® An exposure to organ
dose conversion factor of 1.440 for the lymphatic tissue was applied in accordance with the
External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline.*

Table 1. External Dose

Year External Whole Body TREP
(mR/d) Distribution
1956 1.28E+00 Lognormal/GSD 5

The fofal external dose assigned to the lymphatic tissue was 0.673 rem.

Occupational Medical Dose
One pre-employment and one post-employment diagnostic X-ray procedure may have been

required as a condition of employment at Baker-Perkins for the performance of AEC work
there. The term “pre-employment” means prior to the performance of AEC-contracted work,
and the term “post-employment” means after the performance of AEC-contracted radiological

work. vas assigned one pre-employment and one post-employment X-ray exam

Page 5 of 8


in accordance with the Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from
Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures.’

The total X-ray dose assigned to s 0.070 rem.

Internal Dose
Internal dose is caused by radioactive materials that are taken into the body. A chronic intake is

an intake of radioactive material that occurs over an extended period of time (typically weeks or
longer). An acute intake is an intake of radioactive material that occurs over a short period of
time (typically minutes to hours). Regardless of the rate at which the intake occurs, the internal
dose received from radioactive materials having long half-lives occurs over an extended period
of time and is, therefore, considered chronic. Because there is no existing model that calculates
internal dose to the lymphatic tissue the internal dose was determined by using the dose

calculated for the thoracic lymph nodes.’

No dose monitoring records could be found for at Baker-Perkins Company. Tn
accordance with the NIOSH Internal Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline’, the IMBA
program® was used to calculate the dose to the lymphatic tissue from exposure to both ingested
and inhaled alpha radioactivity based on intake 2 quantities (Table 2 below) provided in Table P.1
and Table P.2 of the technical basis document.° Solubility Type S was used as a claimant-
favorable assumption for assigning dose.

Table 2. Internal Exposures
=

Intake pCi/d TREP |
Nuclide Start End Ingestion | Inhalation Distribution |
Lognormal/ |

| Uranium-234 | 1/1/1956_| 12/31/1956 | 2948.01 | 3.15E+01 GSD 5.5

The total internal dose assigned to the lymphatic tissue was11.015 rem.

Dose from Radiological Incidents

The record of the telephone interview was evaluated carefully by the dose reconstructor. The
interview process indicated that according to a newspaper article there had been an accident
involving radioactive material. A search of the site research database did not reveal any
evidence or documentation of a radiological accident at Baker-Perkins during the AEC work.

Uncertainty
Internal dose values were input into IREP as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5.5 and

external dose values were input into IREP as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5 in
accordance with the technical basis document.® Occupational medical X-ray dose values were
input into IREP asa normal distribution with a 30% uncertainty in accordance with the technical

basis document.”

Page 6 of 8


13

great especially if you're going to be referring to them.

But the first thing I want

to note is a photograph of the, we identified as the
kneading machine that was used in the test.
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.
fo Thi xing machine
that was used. You can see its scale and its size in
relation to men working on it. So this wasn't a small

little mixer. This was a very large, heavy, industrial

10

il

12

machine that was being used to conduct this piece of

equipment.

Now, in relationship to this equipment, and you __

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

can see it in the windows of Baker Perkins, I recognize
the windows of Baker Perkins because at one time in my
life I had an opportunity to visit the facility. This
was in 1976 when I was working for Rifkin Scrap Iron. I
was driving a truck.

And I would go to this facility to pick up
scrap iron, and the reason I'm telling you this is that I
was an observer of the kind of facility they had there.
And what it was is this enormous building. I: was a huge
building. Very similar to an aircraft carrier or an

aircraft hanger.

And you -- I would actually drive my truck into

it, and I was picking up large chunks of scrap iron, and



wee reac
NOY. 22. LUid>, 4eisrr Der! Ur LHDUK clb owe Lore
~ Summary Report Page 1 of 2

NIOSH-Interactive RadioEvidemiological Program
Probability of Ca ition Results

Date of Run: 5/23/2005 DOL District Office: CL
Time of Run; 2-94-45 pry NIOSH-IREP version: 5.4
NIOSH ID #: . Analytica/ADE version: 3.0
Claimant Namie: ae _be ClaimantSSn: ak |

Claimant Cancer Diagnoses:

Primary Cancer #1: Lung Date of Diagnosis: 04/14/1964
Primary Cancer #2: N/A Date of Diagnosis: N/A
Primary Cancer #3: N/A Date of Diagnosis: N/A
Secondary Cancer #1: N/A Date of Diagnosis: N/A
Secondary Cancer #2: N/A Date of Diagnosis: N/A
Secondary Cancer #3: N/A Date of Diagnosis: N/A

Claimant Information Used In Probability of Causation Calculation:

Gender. Male Race (skin cancer only): N/A
Birth Year: 19410 . Year of Diagnosis: 1964
Cancer Model; Lung {16: Should alternate cancer model be run?: No

Smoking history (trachea, bronchus, or lung cancer only); Never smoked

NIOSH-IREP Assumptions and Settings:

User Defined Uncertainty Distribution: Lognot 444
Number of Iterations; 2000 : Random Number Seed: 99

General Exposure Information:

[Exposure # [Exposure Year||_ Organ Dose (cSv) ~ [Exposure Rate || Radiation Type
[ ee ee =564.8  ||__chronic__| alpha

i 2 | 1957 ‘|| Constant=180.3 || chronic “| alpha

| 3 | 1958 __|[__Constant=90.84 [chronic [| _ alpha
[4 1068 Gonstant=66.06 _|[chronle” {alpha
{5 | 1960 |[__Constant=49.25 }[_chronic__})| alpha |

6 I 1961 Constant=37.42 [chronic {alpha
7

1962 Constant=29.26 __|{__ chronic [alpha
Le te63 | Constant=23.48 [chronic alpha
iL 8 [i964 i Constant =5.875 [chronic alpha __||

file://D:\369108335\A_DR%20Files REP%20Summary_008904_v54,.htm 06/10/2005



. (3) .
" ANALYTICAL DATA’ SHEET NO

9 8539" -
ANALYTICAL DEPT, — HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION ; _
1956 Industrial Hygiene or Medical Dept. Analytical Chemistry Section:

- 1 Hig 825 Semple Nos.4.__ Dato Collected 5/15 ___by CRS Route to__CES Date Received__ 5-22-56 by__iab
Location__BAKER--PERKINS CO Typo of Sample_aic_dust Analyzed for F ‘Alpharce|| Date Reported__5=22-66 by__ ee
Remarks __ SAGINAW, MICHIGAN U Beta Method of Analysis_Alpba_saintd Lietion

No, Ra —~sountor 2 : bj
Oil pH. Counting Data:
Be Th |akep__el9 o/ain  geo___— 44K
‘SampleNo. | Hour | Sample Description im T Q Count | Time C/min | a/m/u
6907 0839 GA Bast side of Ko-Knender during first |.02 15 23 32 6/86 S461 B20
trial run, : :
6908 0839 GA West side of Ko~Kneader during same |.02. 15 23 32 10047 2,87 31
period as above.
‘| Water line plugged: up after a few minute,
of operating time-and water’ supply cut off,
Dry material. dropped into product drum a
- discharge end causing considerable dust.
6909 0903 GA Same jocation as 6907; during 2nd [.o2 -|_ 10 22 52. 482 BAB 06
test run, ‘ :
6910 9903 GA Same as 6908; during 2nd test run, 202 10 22 32 B.8B B.Al BB.
. Some dusting as wet materinl falls into

crum_on top of dry material, Vacuum hose
from Spencer inserted into drum to reduct

nmount of escaning dust. Water line plucked
again toward end of sampling period

(simuitaneous with test period) and moreldry
material dropped from barrel resulting ah more | dust.

DISTRIBUTIONS

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DEPARTMENT (AECORD Cory) 3-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT
2stNOUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

4-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION


. 42)

ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET

NO 8538
ANALYTICAL DEPT, -~ HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION
‘1956 Industrial Hygiene or Medical Dept. Analytical Chemistry Section:
I. Hage B24 Sample Nor Date Collected_5/14__by CBS Route to_CBS Dato Received __Sm21-56 by.Iab
Location. BAKER~PERKINS Type of Sampleaiz dust Analyzed for F Alpha 20} Date Reported__ 5-22-56. ar
Remarks SAGINAW, MICHIGAN U Beta Mathed of Analysis Al phe sointiliation :
No, Ra ——sounter_2___"_"_ij-_ ot _
Oil pH Counting Data:
Be, Th KD —-1-a/ntn — GEO__44%
meee So
Sample No. Hour Sample Description R T Q Count | Time C/min af
6906 -1532__|GA Ko-Kneader area during calibration’ of |,02 | 12 | .24 32. 1.66 20/32 276
Omega feeder, Material fed throuch
feeder and dropped into cardboard
container from-sample chute. Only
visible dusting ‘was when box was
removed and emptied.
OISTRIGUTION:

ANALYTICAL LASORATORY DEPARTMENT (AxCOND Cory)
2-INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

NLO-MOS.7396 Ca.z.80)

3-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

A-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION


APPEARANCES

On behalf of the Employee:



(3)

ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET

NO 8541
ANALYTICAL DEPT, — HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION " e
1956 Industrtal Hygieno or Medical Dept. Analytical Chemistry Section:
1. Huge 817 Sample Nos 4 Date Collected_5/L5 byCBS___Route to__CBS Date Received__5- 22-656. by__iab
Locotion_BAKER-PERIINS GO, Type of Sample_aixIdust __Anelyzed for F ‘Alphaxx!! Date Reported._Be22-B8 0 by
Remarks SAGINAW, MICIIIGAN U Beta Method of AnalysisAlpba_nointidietion
No, Ra pountar 2 2 by oun
Oil pH Counting Data:
Be Th BKGD___+39 ofmin " GEO 44%
— <= SSS
Sample No. Hour Sample Description R T fa) Count | time Cfatn_| WANN
6915 1119 GA West side of Ko-Kneader discharge as 02 is 3 32 8.35 3.64 39
Slightly watered materjal is run : :
through barrel to push out hydrate
which had adhered to sides of barrel,
6916 2119 Ga SR corner of KowKneader; simultaneous | .02 | 15 3 1s 16. 0.88 "
with 6915 .
{this point it was decided that the mix ng could not be
done on the Type "Pp" Ko-Kneader; that the |Type IK" would
be better. Decontamination of the "P" Ko-lHneaded started
iat _1:04 p.m,
6917 XorKneader area during initial decon- | .02 | 12 224 $2 | Te27 42} 87
tamination phase; chipping dried oxide |
cake from the wings and teeth ‘and usin : L
Filet vacuum tool attachment to vacuum |
Aoose_material from barrel. |
6938 WA Same as 6917 202 | 12 224 32 845 3.60 49
DISTRIRUTION:

S-ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DEPARTMENT (heEGonD copy)
JHINOUSTAIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

3+MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

A.DIDFCTAD AC LEAL TLE F eaerme Runeians


NIOSH Program Area - Office of Compensation Analysis and Supp:

Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Search NIOSH NIOSH Home NIOSH Topics Site index Databases and Information Resources
NIOSH Program Area:

ATTACHMENT G

NIOSH Products Contact Us

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS)

Claim Information—Main Page
Part B - NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Referrals from
the Department of Labor (DOL)

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
(EEOICPA) - By State and/or Site

modified 8/26/2008

Michigan Baker-Perkins Co.
Cases Referred to NIOSH by DOL 8

Cases Currently Returned to DOL (100%)

~cases returned with a completed final dose reconstruction report 8
~cases pulled from NIOSH and dose reconstruction by DOL" 0
~cases pulled from NIOSH and dose reconstruction for SEC? 0

*

8
Cases Currently Administratively Closed by NIOSH (0%) Q

Cases Currently at NIOSH (0%)

~cases assigned to Health Physicists for dose reconstruction i)
~cases with a completed draft dose reconstruction; awaiting OCAS-1 0
~cases not yet assigned to Health Physicists for dose reconstruction ie)

DOL pulled (withdrew) case from NIOSH and dose reconstruction due to int request, claimant death without a
known survivor, or insufficient employment or medical mformation

2 NIOSH pulled case from dose reconstruction and retumed it to DOL for Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) consideration
Draft dose reconstruction report completed Administratively closed due to claimant refusal to sign OCAS-1 form.

40f the total active clams at NIOSH, 0 out of 0 (0%), represent dose reconstructions retumed to NIOSH by DOI. for rework
duo to additional employment, an additional cancer needs to be dose reconstructed, of the affect of a technical change

‘pased on a Program Evaluation Reports being examined

Top of Page

Page iast modified’ August 26, 2008
Page last reviewed: May 30, 2008
Content Source. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

NIOSH Home | NIOSH Search | NIOSH Site index | NIOSH Topic List | Contact NIOSH

http://www2a.cdc.gov/ocas/byStateAndSite.asp

Find It!

Claimant Corner

# Claim Information

& Commonly Used
Acronyms

HEAQs

§ General Activities on
AWE Cases

# General Activities on
DOE Cases

i Help AZ

§ List of Work Sites

§ Phone interview
Information

# OCAS Print Materials

5 Status of Your Dose
Reconstruction

OCAS Directory

About OCAS

‘Mhe Act (EEOICPA)

‘Advisory Board

Conflict or Bias Policy
and Disclosure
Statements

1 Dose Reconstruction

VHelp A-Z

‘Latest Update to
OCAS Web Site

‘I Probability of
Causation
(NIOSH-IREP)

1 Public Meetings

1 Program Evaluation
Reports (PERs) and
Program Evaluation
Plans (PEPs)

I Regulatory Record
(Public Docket)

‘1 Related Links

4d Special Exposure
Cohort

‘Technical Documents
Used in Dose
Reconstruction

‘I Timeline of Major
OCAS Events

SOCAS Main Page

8/26/2008


October 31, 2005

Summary of NIOSH’s Re-examination of Lymphoma Target Organ
Selection

Current NIOSH practice for the selection of target organs involving lymphomas is to obtain a
medical review by a physician to determine the site of origin. in the past, these reviews have
relied on the listed biopsy location to identify the appropriate target organ. The result of this
determination has frequently been to use the highest non-metabolic organ’ as the internal dose
target organ, and to use a nearby organ as a surrogate for the external target organ. NIOSH has
re-examined the appropriateness of this strategy of target organ selection, in light of the current
scientific literature on the diagnosis and etiology of the various forms of lymphoma. To assist in
its review, NIOSH sought the expert advice of Dr. Mark Crowther, Associate Professor of
Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Crowther has board-certifications in
internal medicine and hematology.

This re-examination has revealed that, for many non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, there are two issues
with NIOSH’s method of selecting target tissues for organ-specific radiation dose reconstruction.
First, the site of occurrence of the tumor is not necessarily the site of the original radiation injury.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a disease involving malignant lymphocytes. Unlike the case for most
primary solid tumors, where the tumor results from the interaction of radiation with immobile cells,
radiation could have interacted with these lymphocytes anywhere in the lymphatic or circulatory
system, and then formed a tumor elsewhere. The second issue is that the site listed in the
diagnosis may not actually be the site of primary involvement. Rather, it is common to list the site
of the biopsy, which is selected based primarily on convenience, that is, as indicated by clinical
symptoms and ease of diagnostic access.

Because the site of origin of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas can not be determined with any
confidence, NIOSH proposes to modify the selection of target organs so that the dose to the
highest plausible organ is used in the dose reconstruction. For internal dose, the thoracic lymph
nodes associated with the lungs will be selected because the dose to this tissue from exposure
via inhalation of insoluble radioactive material is always higher than the dose to other organs. For
external dose, the lungs will be selected for B-cell lymphomas as the target organ because a
significant fraction of the total lymphoid organ mass occurs in the thoracic cavity. For T-cell
lymphomas, the thymus will be selected.

For the subset of lymphomas, where tumor location is informative about the probable site of
original radiation injury (e.g. Hodgkin's disease, lymphosarcoma, etc.), the information related to
the site of diagnosis will be considered in target organ selection

This guidance pertains only to the selection of appropriate target organ as the site of radiation
injury (i.e., for calculation of effective radiation dose during the dose reconstruction process). It
has no bearing on the selection of the appropriate IREP cancer risk model, nor does it impact the
risk models themselves.

Following a number of telephone and email consultations with Dr. Crowther, NIOSH prepared
revision 0 of OCAS-TIB-012: Selection of internal and extemal dosimetry target organs for
lymphatic/hematopoietic cancers. This technical information bulletin reviewed the current NIOSH
procedure regarding the target organ selection for lymphatic/nematopoietic cancers, as specified

1 In this context, the highest non-metabolic organ refers to the organ
with the highest internal dose that is not explicitly described as
concentrating the radionuclide under investigation. In current ICRP
model terminology, it is equivalent to the highest dose assigned to
“other soft tissues.”


diagnosis, NIOSH will prepare a radiation Dose

Reconstruction.

In order to be deemed eligible for compensation
under the Act, the Department of Labor applies a formula
to the Dose Reconstruction in order to determine whether
the covered employee's cancer is at least as likely as
not related to the covered employment.

NIOSH provided the report of the Dose

Reconstruction, and the Department of Labor found that

10

11

12

there was a 38.02 percent probability that your father's
cancer was causally related to his employment under the

Act.

13”

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

~~" AB sucH, 6n March 22nd, 2008, the Cleveland
District Office issued a Recommended Decision under Part
B of the Act stating that your father's cancer was not at
least as likely as not related to his employment under
Part B of the Act, and recommended denial of your claim
under Part B.

On May 7th, 2008, the Final Adjudication Branch
received your objection to the Recommended Decision and
your request for an oral hearing. This is that hearing.

Your written objection was non-specific. Your
claim was subject to a NIOSH Dose Reconstruction. The
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction did not show that .the

Employee's cancer was at least as likely as not related



August 26, 2008
22-09-08P03:14
SEC Petition 14 Revo
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway MS-C-47
Cincinnati OH 45226

Dear Members of the Commission;

This petition is based upon the following issues that relate to Special
Exposure Cohort (SEC), of Baker Perkins Company of Saginaw Michigan
an atomic weapons employer beginning May 1956.

This SEC petition for the residual radiation time periods is based upon the
following issues; the incomplete analysis and review of all available source
information available to NIOSH. And the deficient and unreliable and
incomplete dosimetry data available to NIOSH for residual radiation
workers and lack of proper training.

These residual radiation workers performed work without protective
equipment and supervision and without dosimetry monitoring of the
employees to measure internal exposure to uranium dust exposure from
inhalation and ingestion or uranium that were circulated throughout the
building and daily exposure to dust that had settled on rafters and
equipment and equipment. See Attachments: A, B, D, E, and F.

Decontamination operations such as chipping, vacuum cleaning, scooping
uranium should be preformed with extreme care. Approved respirators
should be worm by operators and all those that were present in plant
during operations to prevent the operator’s exposure and to those in the
area of excessive radioactive airborne dust concentrations. Employees
should be monitored and made aware of immediate danger to radiation
exposures. Furthermore Attachment A clearly states that there are
cumbersome monitoring and clearly show there were incidents that took
place during the process and decontamination operations.

The internal dose exposure estimates that rely on air concentration dose
data for the residual radiation time period has been criticized by experts as
unreliable. See Attachment: G.

According to the analytical data from Baker Perkins the Ko-Kneader as
used as part of the process to mix the uranium , Attachment C. This
machine is a very large piece of equipment that has spread large amounts
of uranium dust throughout the plant. The inhalation and or/ingestion of




29

Okay. Once again, more cleaning with brushing.
6938, more cleaning. More power brushing.

And then GA same as Okay, so it's
the same as what they were doing earlier: this was
probably the dustiest of the decontamination jobs. Doors
and windows were opened and personnel wore respirators.

So this job of decontaminating this machine was
so dusty from this orange oxide that they -- somebody

said let's open the windows and the doors to let the air

10

il

12

come in and blow this stuff around. And it was so bad
that the personnel involved were all wearing their

respirators because, well, they were breathing in this

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

noxious powder.
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE GRABER: Okay.

Okay. And they went on and
started steam cleaning the area. Steam cleaned the area
during steam cleaning during -- they did some more steam
cleaning.
. So basically they steam cleaned the machines,
and the machines were clean because they went in there
and chipped it out, they vacuumed it out, they steam
cleaned it off when they were done.

And by the way, when you steam clean, you use

steam which has water. It washes the material off.

Well, where does it go? You have a huge machine.



(3)

, ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET

NO 8545
ANALYTICAL DEPT. — HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION
1956 lidustrial Hyglane or Medical Dept. Analytical Chemistry Section:
1. H.gt 820___ Sample Nos__6 Date Collected 5/17 ty CBS Routa to.—CBS Date Recoived._fiaQ2-BG iby, Tah
Location__BAKER-PERKINS CO. Type of Somplonix dust Analyzed for F Alphax] Date Reported_&=22=56 by oT
Remarks __SAGINAW, MICHIGAN. U Beta Method of Analysis_Alpba_aointiliation
(Decontamination) ‘K" Ko-Kneader No; Ra counter 2 by CuM
Oil pH Counting Data: :
Be Th “BKGD___.19.o/min GEOL aah
——
Sample:No. Hour Sample Description | R T fa] Count | Pane Chat e/a hd
6932 0903 GA Ko-Kneader area during start of decon+ .02 | 15 23 ai 0.88 36017 391
tamination; vacuuming chiseling
caked UO3 from screw and barrel,
Feed hopper removed during this sampl¢,
6933 BZ Using hammer and chisel to chip caked| ,02 | 3 .06 82 125 25.4) 1375
03 from screw. Dust-foe respirator
and goggles worn,
6934 BZ Using hammer and chisel to chip caked| .02 | 2 204 | ap “2,18 14.62 1187
VO3 from barrel,
6935 GA Same _as 6932 202 | 15 | 3 32 1.42 22.51 244
6936 R2Vacuuming YO from screw and barrel, | ,02 | 2.5 | .05 B2. 4038, Tel 2 462
6937 ‘BZ:Emptying feed hopper into poly~ 02] 4 208 32 1.49 21.29 864
ethylene bag inside drum, Bag taped
sealed to discharge hopper. |
DISTRIBUTION:

I-ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DEPARTMENT (AKGORD COPY)
2sINDUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

MEAL URE vam ie nee

B-MEDICAL OCPARTMENT.

A-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION


N47

* ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET

. ; NO 8544
ANALYTICAL: DEPT, ~ HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION . -
1956 : "Industrial Hygiene or Medical Dept. Anolytical Chemistry Section:
1 Hage 829 Sample Nos. z Dato Collected 5/26 byCES Route toCBS Date Recsted fete Ta
Location BAKER“PERKINS CO, Type of Sample_aic dust Analyzed for F “Alphaxx} Date Reported_5-22~56
Remarks .SAGINAW, MICHIGAN v Beta || Method of Analysh AUbommtio alpha meperthe
Type_"k" Ko-Kneader No, Ra counter 1 : by CJM
- Oil pH Counting Data: 3
Be Th | BKGD_ 213_o/min. _—. eco_Aek
a ee
Sample No. Hour

Sample Description | R T O | Count | Time Chain afm

6925 GA During steam cleaning of Ko-Kneader 02 | 10 3 20 6.78 2uB2 44
barrel, Dust~foe respirator worn,

6926 is P_ Sample of exhaust from Spencer 202 | 2 04 13. 19.69 0053. AL

| vacuum which was exhausted into room,

“6927 1119" | P Over feed hopper, only opening in 02 | 1 202 ry 16.79. | 9,38. 6A
systen,

6928 1207 GA During running of moist material. 202 | 45 3 20. | 9en0 TPL 20

6929 GA Same as 6928 .02 | 15 | .3 2 1p.79 Lat 18

6930 GA Same as 6928 |.02 | 20 | 04 | 2 20.88 | 0.83 6

6931 GA Same _as 6928 : 202 | 20 24 20 2639 8,24 64

Some dumping done during sample #6931,

DISTRIBUTION:

VsANALYTICAL LABORATORY DEPARTMENT (AKGOAD Cory) B-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT
JANDUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT A-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION


42

1 letter --

2 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.

3 ricked that, got

4 that whole series of documents because the Saginaw News

5 referenced a letter to We wanted that

6 documentation and that c om him.

7 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE tight.

8 And contained in that he letter to

9 Mayor Lobster, a OTS note ee a

10 record of contact dated January 28th, 1991.

11 Memorandum dated February 11th, 1991. And the analytical

12 data sheet that Mr. Brenna referenced in his testimon
== "13 ° HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Let's see.

14 Exhibit No. 4 is a letter ta dated

15 December 16th, 2005 fro id it has to

16 do with your FOIA reques' :

17 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Exhibit No. 5

18 is the Dose Reconstruction report draft, page 4 of 11.

19 Is this the one from 2005? This doesn't say on

20 my copy.

21 a Yes.

22 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay -

23 I think I -- because T just

24 wanted to highlight --

25

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right. Okxav.


25

on our vacuums today. Back then all they had were little

1

2 paper filters, so what affect did nuclear material being
3 sucked into a vacuum and forced out into the air, what

4 does that affect upon the environment in the factory?

5 Okay, KO-Kneader during hand scooping of
6 material into feeder hopper. Machine operated during

7 this period.

8 hand scooping material into feeder hopper
9 form drum. Dust-foe respirator was worn.

10 sontinuation of 2xcept when drum was
11 almost empty polyurethane {[sic]| | 3y was pulled out and
12 remainder dumped from liner in the feed hopper.

13 ~"“Phis gives us an idea of what kind of barrel
14 they had. They had a barrel with a plastic liner in

15 there, and this is going to have a, I'm going to, you

16 know, remark on this when we talk about how they

17. concluded their operations. Okay.

18 6916: at this point it was decided that the

19 mixing could not be done with the "I" Type [sic] or Type
20 "I" [sic] KO-Kneader; that Type "K" would be korter.
21 Decontamination of [sic] KO-Kneader started ac 1:40 p.m.
22 Okay, so in the middle of this test they

23 decided to decontaminate the first machine because they
24 decided this wasn't working for some reason. We don’t

25

know what the reason was. So I can envision that this, -



ATTACHMENT H

October 31, 2005

Summary of NIOSH’s Re-examination of Lymphoma Target Organ
Selection

Current NIOSH practice for the selection of target organs involving lymphomas is to obtain a
medical review by a physician to determine the site of origin. In the past, these reviews have
Felied on the listed biopsy location to identify the appropriate target organ. The result of this
determination has frequently been to use the highest non-metabolic organ’ as the internal dose
target organ, and to use a nearby organ as a surrogate for the external target organ. NIOSH has
re-examined the appropriateness of this strategy of target organ selection, in light of the current
scientific literature on the diagnosis and etiology of the various forms of lymphoma. To assist in
its review, NIOSH sought the expert advice of Dr. Mark Crowther, Associate Professor of
Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Crowther has board-certifications in
internal medicine and hematology.

This re-examination has revealed that, for many non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, there are two issues
with NIOSH’s method of selecting target tissues for organ-specific radiation dose reconstruction.
First, the site of occurrence of the tumor is not necessarily the site of the original radiation injury.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a disease involving malignant lymphocytes. Unlike the case for most
primary solid tumors, where the tumor results from the interaction of radiation with immobile cells,
radiation could have interacted with these lymphocytes anywhere in the lymphatic or circulatory
system, and then formed a tumor elsewhere. The second issue is that the site listed in the
diagnosis may not actually be the site of primary involvement. Rather, it is common to list the site
of the biopsy, which is selected based primarily on convenience, that is, as indicated by clinical
symptoms and ease of diagnostic access.

Because the site of origin of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas can not be determined with any
confidence, NIOSH proposes to modify the selection of target organs so that the dose to the
highest plausible organ is used in the dose reconstruction. For internal dose, the thoracic lymph
nodes associated with the Jungs will be selected because the dose to this tissue from exposure
via inhalation of insoluble radioactive material is always higher than the dose to other organs. For
external dose, the lungs will be selected for B-cell lymphomas as the target organ because a
significant fraction of the total lymphoid organ mass occurs in the thoracic cavity. For T-cell
lymphomas, the thymus will be selected.

For the subset of lymphomas, where tumor location is informative about the probable site of
original radiation injury (e.g. Hodgkin's disease, lymphosarcoma, etc.), the information related to
the site of diagnosis will be considered in target organ selection.

This guidance pertains only to the selection of appropriate target organ as the site of radiation
injury (i.e., for calculation of effective radiation dose during the dose reconstruction process). It
has no bearing on the selection of the appropriate IREP cancer risk model, nor does it impact the
tisk models themselves.

Following a number of telephone and email consultations with Dr. Crowther, NIOSH prepared
revision 0 of OCAS-TIB-012: Sefection of intemal and external dosimetry target organs for
lymphatic/hematopoietic cancers. This technical information bulletin reviewed the current NIOSH
procedure regarding the target organ selection for lymphatic/hematopoietic cancers, as specified

* In this context, the highest non-metabolic organ refers to the organ
with the highest internal dose that is not explicitly described as
concentrating the radionuclide undér investigation. In current ICRP
model terminology, it is equivalent to the highest dose assigned to
“other soft tissues.”


14

they would have suspended a large crane, and this large
crane would move throughout the entire facility picking
up a huge box, in my case, of scrap, bringing it over,
many, many thousands of pounds and putting it on my
truck, and then I would drive out of the facility.

Now, the reason I point this out to you is
within this facility all the necessary departments that
were needed for manufacturing were in-housed in this

great big building. You had a painting department, a

10

il

12

welding department, an assembly department, and you

probably had a laboratory.

Now, I wasn't familiar with alli the

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

departments, ‘but as I stood around and observed the
building out of the curiosity of what this place was, I
could see that there were people welding and painting and
assembling and machining and doing all these kinds of
things in this enormous building, with windows and doors,
and hundreds of people working on these very large pieces
of machinery. So this was not a small test covered away
in corner with a small piece of equipment in same out

building as this report seems to imply.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

Okay. This was a large
building with a lot of people with a large piece of

machinery.



30

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE L All right.

And you're steam cleaning

this machine off to get the dust off of it. What happens
to the residual liquid? Well, they probably put it on
the floor. I mean, it's not like a lot of liquid. It's
enough to go on the floor.

So our contention is this: This was not a
limited nuclear event. This didn't happen during just

four days with a little bit of dust. This was a dusty,

10

11

12

dusty, dusty environment where men were chipping and
grinding and vacuuming and blowing this material all

around. And they cleaned the equipment up and hauled

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that away and did something with it.

But there's no record whatsoever that they
cleaned the floors, the walls, the other equipment in the
area, the tables, or even the surrounding area after they
opened the doors and windows where people eat their lunch
presumably on the grass in the summer or park their cars.

So this dust that -- this orange oxide dust,
just from this witness that we have here, was apparently
all over the place. Certainly all over that area. And
likely allowed to float through the shop when, they opened
the windows and the doors to blow this stuff around.

So our contention is if you're going to doa

Dose Reconstruction, you can't just say, look, you know,





Introduction

The Energy Employees Occupational Ilmess Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA), Executive Order No. 13179, and the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule

(42 CFR 82)'

BEOICPA established a compensation program to provide a lump sum payment of $150,000 and
medical benefits as compensation to covered employees suffering from designated illnesses
incurred as a result of their exposure to ionizing radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the
performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its vendors, contractors, and
subcontractors. This legislation also provided for payment of compensation to certain survivors
of these covered employees.

In Presidential Executive Order No. 13179, the President designated the U.S. Department of
Labor to administer this program for claims by current and former employees of nuclear
weapons production facilities and their survivors who seek compensation for cancers caused by
radiation exposures sustained in the performance of duty. The Executive Order also directed the
Department of Health and Human Services to estimate (reconstruct) the radiation doses received
by these employees. The Department of Labor uses the reconstructed radiation dose in
evaluating whether the employee’s cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at
the facilities covered by EEOICPA. To fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Department of
Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s
(NIOSH) Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) completes dose reconstructions
using the methods described in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule (42 CFR 82)! for the
Department of Labor’s use in making compensation decisions.

The Purpose of Radiation Dose Reconstruction
A radiation dose reconstruction is used to estimate the radiation dose received by the specific

organ(s) in which a worker developed cancer, particularly when radiation monitoring data are
unavailable, incomplete, or of poor quality. Even in instances when radiation dosimetry data are
available, they rarely specify dose to an organ and often are based on monitoring procedures that
do not meet modern standards.

The basic principle of dose reconstruction is to characterize the occupational radiation
environment to which a worker was exposed using available worker and/or workplace
monitoring information. In cases where radiation exposures in the workplace environment
cannot be fully characterized based on available data, default values based on reasonable

scientific assumptions are used as substitutes.

EEOICPA recognized that the process of estimating radiation doses would require dealing with
uncertainties and limited data and thus required that the government establish methods for
arriving at reasonable estimates of radiation dose received by an individual who was not
monitored or inadequately monitored for exposures to radiation, or for whom exposure records
are missing or incomplete. To the extent that the science and data involve uncertainties, these
uncertainties are typically handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the claimant.
NIOSH has used the best available science to develop the methods and guidelines for dose

Page 20f8


‘ ANALYTICAL DATA SHEET : NO

9 =—-8540
ANALYTICAL DEPT, — HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION
1956 Industrial Hygiene or Medical Dept. Analytical Chemistry Section:
1. Hage 826 Sample Nos__4__ Date Collected 5/15 byCES Route to_CBS Date Received 5-22-56 by Tab
Location BAKER=PERKINS CO, Type of Samplo2iz dust Analyzed for F Alphax| Date Reported__5#22=56 _by_ Mit
Ramara SAGINAW, MICHIGAN U Beta Method of Analysis_Akpba_aocintiliation
No, Re counter 2." bf 2K
OW pH Counting Data: .
: Be Th ‘BKGD__,19_o/min GEO__44.%.
Sample No, Hour Sample Doscription R T Count | Time’ C/min af
6914, 9919 IGA Ko-Kneader area during hand scooping .02_| 10 22 32. 1.81 17,949 268
of materinl into feed hopper. Machine :
operating during this period. :
6912 BZ Nand scooping material into feed hop~ | ,02 | 5 oi 32 O22 146.26 4716
per from drum. Dust-foe respirator
worn .
6933 Z Continuation of 6912, except when drum| ,02 | 2.5 | .05 || 40 |. 2,97 216630} 15,981__
was almost empty polyethylene liner
was pulled out and remainder dumped |
from liner into feed hopper.
6914 Control Sample 5. 16. O01
DISTRIBUTION: . . .
L-ANALYTICAL LADORATORY DEPARTMENT fAECORD Cory) S-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT
2-INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

A-OIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION
NLO-HOS~736 (2.2.56),


fo Too anxious.
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE) All right.

We're on the record?

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.

HEARING RepRaseNTArTVs| Good morning.

My name Today is Tuesday,
duly 22nd, 2008; and the time is 9:20 a.m. Eastern

Daylight Time.

I am a Hearing Representative with the Final

10

11

12

Adjudication Branch of the Department of Labor's Energy
Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program.

I am currently in Saginaw, Michigan and_ I_have

13

is

16

17

~ been designated ‘to. conduct ‘this hearing and receive the

objections of

for the death of

and

20

21

22

23

24

25

This hearing is convened under the Energy
Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Act, which I
will refer to in the future as the Act, and is governed
by the provisions of Title 20, Section 30.314 >of the Code
of Federal Regulations. These regulations provide

claimants with the right to object to a Recommended



in ORAUT-OTIB-005: /MBA organ, extemal dosimetry organ, and IREP model selection by ICD-9
code.

Prior to the release of this procedure, however, OCAS-TIB-012 was then subjected to further
review by Dr. Keith Eckerman of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Dr. Eckerman, a
tecognized expert in internal dosimetry and a member of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP), provided several suggestions, the most significant of which was
to select the thoracic lymph nodes [LN(TH)}, rather than the extrathoracic lymph nodes [LN(ET)],
for internal target organs in situations where the site of original radiation injury is unknown. Dr.
Eckerman’s proposal, as noted in his attached review, was based on the fact that it is a plausible
choice and that it is also claimant-favorable, as doses to LN(TH) are typicaily higher than doses
to LN(ET). This suggestion was incorporated into revision 1 of OCAS-TIB-012.

Concurrent with preparation of OCAS-TIB-012, NIOSH initiated a review to identify completed
lymphoma dose-reconstructions with a probability of causation <50% at the upper 99" percentile
credibility limit which may be affected by the revised organ selection guidance. Approximately
500 cases requiring re-examination have been identified. Further action on this re-examination,
as well as implementation of OCAS-TIB-012 for the several hundred currently uncompleted
cases, has been suspended pending review by the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health,
as requested by the Board at its meeting on October 19, 2005. To facilitate the Board's review,
the three documents relevant to this issue: 1) Draft OCAS-TIB-012 rev. 1; 2) report on target
organ selection from Dr. Mark Crowther; and, 3) review of OCAS-TIB-012 rev. 1 by Dr. Keith
Eckerman, are attached.


40

is your packet right here. And you got a couple other
things.

Just, in order to summarize, that this was --
granted, we only had the one witness, the observer that I

was reading the material.

We have inconsistencies in how they went about
from one person to another in coming up with their
determination, and I think we need to look at the

incident itself as being much more serious, longer

10

11

12

duration of incident than what we -- than what they had
originally looked at when they made their initial

assessments, and we'd like things re-evaluated on those

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

basis.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE And this packet
here, do we have all of the Battelle Report? Yes, we do.
Okay.

Can we start marking these.

One other comment I know
on the model, the mathematical model that they use,
you're not able to talk about that -- but looking it over
the best I could from the information I couid find on the
Internet, it seems to have some issues as you generate it
out over a period of time, that does degenerate the
mathematical models which is typical when you do a proof

of a model. They typically don't hold up under changes.



NOV. 22.2085 4:11PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 842 1375 NU.4d2 00 Pee
summary Report Page 2 of 2
Radon Exposure Information:
N/A {applies only to cases af Lung Gancer with Radon Exposures)
Results of NIOSH-IREP
Probability of Causation: ,
I tt percentile 4.07 %
[_Sth percentile 11.89 %
| 80th percentile 57.24%
[95th percentile 91.53 %
{ 9gth percentile 96.16 %
To perform another calculation, please logout and close your browser: fend Session)"
To calculate PC from multiple primary cancers, click here:
06/10/2005

http://www.niosh-irep.com/irep_niosh/summ_report.asp


WOxsdsn-mpamy
S2AeS 7

9008 Aseniges ‘yu20)
“Sou Sau aati

al
AUTORef



ATTACHMENT

os,

¢ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
“Sree

NIOSH Tracking Number: 18339 National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998
Phone: 513-533-6800
Fax: 513-533-6817

March 4, 2008

This letter is to provide you with information on the status of the claim you filed under the Fnergy
Employees Occupational IIIness Compensation Program Act (NIOSH Tracking Number

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support (OCAS) has completed a reconstruction of the radiation dose for your claim,
conducted a closing interview with you, and received a properly signed OCAS-1 form. Enclosed
you will find a copy of the final NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

We have forwarded a copy of the enclosed final dose reconstruction report to the appropriate
Department of Labor (DOL) District Office of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for
their use in adjudicating your claim. We have also sent a copy of this report to the Department of

Energy.

If you have any additional questions regarding your claim, please feel free to contact us toll-free at

4-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636). You can also email us at ocas@cde.gov or contact our office
directly at (513) 533-6800. Additional information on OCAS can also be found on our Web site at

http:/Awww.cde.gow/niosh.

Sincerely yours,

Larry J. Elliott
Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

Enclosures



20

Indeed, I could suggest to you that had this
Mr. Stout gone there with a Geiger counter and examined
the facility, he might have picked up residual nuclear
waste,

Let's take a look at how this test was
conducted. And the only witness to it is this analytical
air quality report that was done by some individual. I
don't have the name, but it said by a lab -- by a lab,

and then we have some initials, | and Who these

10

11

12

people were, I don’t know. But evidently they were
people who were assigned to observe what was happening

during the course of this test, and they noted it on

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

something called an ‘analytical data sheet.

Now, this is not a data sheet that the nuclear
energy commission gave them. My -- I once worked as an
inspector for a company, and this looks like the kind of
company record that you would have that you would fill
out for the company as they went about testing some sort
of a product, okay?

And I suggest to you that this was a Baker
Perkins document where when they processed materials or
did some sort of a test for a customer, they would make
some record of it so they would have it for their
engineering and their sales staff, okay? I can’t prove

this, but I think if we were to, you know if tnis were to



NOV.2¢.cu> 4i tern Vor! Ur LApUN e1u wen aoe

tow 2 ey

levels were assumed in order to estimate doses. hese workers, The type of cancer and the date
of diagnosis were obtained from the medical records submitted by the claimant.

oe NIOSH ID# Social Security #

The methodology described in the technical basis document’ is considered applicable to this

dose reconstruction because the derived doses are based on assumed exposure to natural uranium.
metal only, Ifthe doses due to any additional source terms not considered in the technical ~~

basis document were added to this dose reconstruction, the estimated dose would increase,
Consideration of the dose due to any additional dose contributors is not necessary for claim

determination purposes.

For lung cancer claims, smoking history is necessary to determine the probability of causation.
The covered employee’s smoking history was categorized as “never smoked” at the time of
cancer diagnosis by the NIOSH Referral Summary.

In addition to the above information, the record of the computer assisted telephone interview was
reviewed carefully by the dose reconstructor. The information provided was considered in the
dose estimation pracess.

Dose Estimate

External Dose
Per the provisions in 42 CFR § 82.10(k)(1),' it was determined that the estimation of internal

dose alone was sufficient to consider the dose reconstruction complete, Because of this,
. external dose was not reconsiricted.

Occupational Medical Dose

Per the provisions in 42 CFR § 82.10(k)(1),! it was determined that an estimation of oceupa-
tional medical dose from required X-ray examinations was not necessary in order to complete
this dose reconstruction, Because ofthis, 44 & potential occupational medical dose
was not reconstructed,

Internal Dose
Internal dose is received from radiation originating inside the body (i.e., from radioactive

material taken into the body in some way). It can be calculated based on bioassay measurements
of individual workers ot on measurements of radiological conditions in the workplace, No dose
monitoring records could be found for’ 44 _ at Baker-Perkins, Thus, source term
estimates were used to produce an assumed source term for internal dose calculations.*

Radiation Type, Energy, and Exposure Conditions

From the records, it was not possible to state whether ornot +44 lo _ was in a position to
be exposed to radioactive material. Thus, it was assumed that he was exposed chronically to the
source: the uranium metal handled during operations, The source was uranium metal and the

most significant radiation for internal exposure was alpha radiation.

The assumption was made that the source was taken into the body by inhalation during uranium
handling operations. These operations were assumed to occur daily, resulting in a chronic intake

Page 5 of 8


21

go to a court or something like that that this is the

kind of thing we would have to determine.

So we have this thing, and it went on and it
talked about what was going on. When the first page of
it, you don't have it with you, but you can reference it

at a later time when you get these documents.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

The first page starts out

with a sample and they talk about how much water was used

10

Ti

12

during the course of this, and there were three batches

of 130 milliliters or something of water going through

it, but that isn't really -- this was -- and ultimately

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

"they said it was discharged to river during steam

cleaning. I suggest it was dumped in the drain. Not
that this matters to me, but the drain at that time in
'57 did go to the river. We don't do that today, but it
did then. Anyway.

HEARING REPRESENTATIV: I would hope

not.

But the next page, if you

look at the analytical data sheet here, they wenc by
sample numbers, and they did them in numerical order,
okay?

As to they take samples apparently from this

barrel, and what it does is it shows us how this test was



36

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.
And the external rates were only
based upon one year, that being in 1956.

HEARING REPRESENTATIV! Right.

|
endured exposures

from May 1956 to duly 12th, 1968 when he was separated
from the organization. It was a voluntary release.

As stated in the 9-14-07 report,

was exposed to internal and external sources of

10

11

12

radiation.

I want to explain one thing, I've read a couple

articles; one was by the Uranium Review of Properties,

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

' Origin and Potential Effects: Both alpha and beta

particles penetrate the cell membranes, hence, ingesting,
inhaling, or absorbing radioactive materials capable of
emitting alpha and beta particles and placing themselves
inside the delicate body parts such as lungs, heart,
brain, kidney, possess a serious health threat to the
human health.

This is just a model that they have in here,
and you'll have a copy of this, just showiny the route of
the system of how the, when it becomes inhalec or
ingested can continue to circulate it throuyh the
lymphatic system, which my father was diagnosed with

lymphatic system --


il

to address is the conclusions made by the Battelle Team
Dose Reconstruction Project.

This is a Dose Reconstruction commentary where
they said here's what happened, this is where it took
place, and the Dose Reconstruction is concluded from
that. They say okay, here's what went on, and I'm going
to suggest that this report missed some vital aspects of
it, okay?

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

10

il

12

Let me just sort of briefly

go over it for you.

And one of the things they said was they talked

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

atomic weapons employers to -- for refined uranium and

thorium; it took place at Baker Perkins; and that it was
a test process with mixers at its laboratory facilities,
a single building, and controls were in place; post-
operational decontamination was implemented and having
been performed.

And then they went on to talk about the period
of time, May 14 to 15, they said there as a test
performed involving approximately one to twe drums of
uranium trioxide, orange oxide with water and kneadiny
machines, P and K -- KO-Kneader machines.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Rignt.

a



39

in the report dated June 3rd, 2003. Neither Employee,
this is the Employee that was paid to claim, had a
dosimetry badge worn or bioassay records were found, thus
showing the employer was not aware of proper monitoring

of the employees.

So neither this individual or my father they
could indicate any type of records that they wore any
type of monitoring or were monitored during the course of

their employment with Baker Perkins when this testing

10

11

12

went on.

And I ask that this claim be re-evaluated for

payment under the Special Cohort under 42 C.F.R., Part 33

“13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

[sic] as case is defined as a special

cancer diagnosed under the special cohort.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

And we have all the

documentation for you.
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

If there's no other testimony we can start

marking Exhibits, getting them into the record.

Okay.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE We can do that

now.
Is that my packet?

| dust -- yep. I think this



| NIOSH OCAS

NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act (EEOICPA)

HID: Social Security No. | DOL District Office
Cleveland
i
Energy Employee
Name: 5 -
Tost First Middle Date of Birth
Covered
Employment:
Cancer:
Calculations Perfo

Peer Review Comp

Dose Reconstructi

Page 1 of 8


ATTACHMENT A = 339=e9Eq) E.'S

OUTPUIA luk Vag FO
NO 8536
ANALYTICAL DATA SHEE:
* ANALYTICAL DEPT, ~ HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION No
1956 Industrial Hygiene or Modical Dept. Anolytical Chemistry Section:
6
abe,
|. Hagp_822 Sample Nos... Date Collectad_5/17__by CES Route to__CBS Date Received 6-21-56 byabe
Location. BAKER-PERKINS CO Typo of ¥ Sample-—seasier. Analyzed for F Alpha || Date Reported 6-23-56 00 oy Le Tabs
Remarks SAGINAW, MICHIGAN U xxx Beta Method of Analysi_Eluorimatar.
1 No ; Ra ; by lab.

ing of equipment, Oil pH Counting Data: :

Be Th BKGD. GEO.
eee —— See Se
Sample No, Hour Sample Description R T iv] Vole ppm 0

Please analyze for gm/U/gal.
BP=1 P =~ KO-Kneader 130 mis 078.
BP-2 K_~ KO-Kneadex BSL
BP=3. Omega Reeder 130_mi. 54066

BISTAISUTION:

IsANALYTICAL LABORATORY DEPARTMENT (RECORD COPY) S-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT
2:INOUSTRIAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

NLO-NOS. 738 (2.2.06)

A-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION.


28

unusual line: some dumping done during sample 6931.
When somebody says they dumped something, I'm
inclined to think they dropped it on the floor. Okay?
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE It doesn't say
where it was dumped?

ee Doesn't say where it was

dumped, but it got dumped.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

fo Didn't say it went in the

10

a1

12

barrel, which I would think that that's what you'd want
to do. I guess what I'm trying to get is this is a

casual environment. It's as if they were working with

13-

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

flour, okay? It's not as if they were working with a
nuclear material, so they dumped this somewhere. Okay?
We don't know where, but he noted this as something
unique, something special; I dumped it. Okay, he dumped
something. Okay.

And then basically they continued chiseling in
6932. They started KO-Kneader area during start of
decontamination. They tell how they decontaminated.
They vacuumed it, they chiseled the caked UO3 rrom screw
and barrel. The feed hopper was removed. They used
hammers and chisels to get the caked up material. They
did wear their respirator and goggles. And they vacuumed

this material from the screw and the barrel.



26

they decontaminated or basically took the material out.
And when we talk about decontamination, are we talking
about what we would think of the decontamination today?
Or are we just talking about getting-the dust out, okay?

HEARING REPRESENTATIV: Okay.

All right.

And so they would come and with a crane they

would pick up this huge machine, they would pull it out

of there to some other part of the plant, and then

10

11

12

apparently they would bring in another.
Okay, KO-Kneader [sic] during initial

decontamination phase; chipping dried oxide cake from the

13,

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

" wings and teeth and using flat vacuum tool attachment to

vacuum loose material from barrel.

So they vacuumed it through the barrel, but
once again let me remind you how a vacuum works: you suck
this nuclear material into it; some of it collects in
there, but how much of it is blown out into the factory?

Okay, cemoving barrel from machine and

placing on paper on floor for cleaning.

So apparently they moved something our of the
machine and they put it on the floor for cleaning.
Apparently they put down some paper on the floor and they
cleaned part of this machine on the floor. I guess ny

question is, if you were to take a -- something out of. e



decision. Final determinations are made by the Department of Labor based on standards
determined by EEOICPA and its implementing regulations.

Dose Reconstruction Overview

The Office of Compensation Analysis and Support has performed a dose reconstruction for
in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Energy Employees
Occupational I!ness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Information provided by the

Department of Labor (DOL) indicated that worked at Baker-Perkins Company from
November 7, 1948 through July 12, 1968. position at the facility is unknown. No
dosimetry or bioassay records could be found for related to work by Baker-Perkins

for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, one of the predecessor agencies of the present
Department of Energy).

Baker-Perkins manufactured commercial mixers (among other products), On May 14 and 15,
1956, Baker-Perkins performed a test of its mixing equipment for National Lead of Ohio. The
tests involved mixing approximately 1to 2 drums of uranium trioxide with water and kneading
the mixture with the Baker-Perkins “P” and “K” Ko-Kneader machines. This test process was
conducted in a single building. Decontamination of the equipment was conducted on May 15

through 18, 1956.

Tt was verified that|_________1 was diagnosed with histiocytic lymphoma on August 26, 1980.
Based on the guidance in the Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Organ, External
Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code,’ internal dose and external dose to
the lymphatic tissue was evaluated for potential exposure starting in 1956 until the time of cancer
diagnosis in 1980. dose reconstructed under the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 was 11.757 rem to the lymphatic tissue.

For the purposes of this dose reconstruction, radiation dose was estimated using
claimant-favorable assumptions related to radiation exposure and intake, based on current
science, documented experience, and relevant data. Even under these assumptions, NIOSH has
determined that further research and analysis will not produce a level of radiation dose resulting
ina probability of causation of 50% or greater. In accordance with 42 CFR § 82. 10(k),! NIOSH
has determined that sufficient research and analysis have been conducted to consider this dose
reconstruction complete. The results of this dose reconstruction will be used by the Department

of Labor to determine eligibility for compensation.

If the facts surrounding this dose reconstruction change (¢.g., the date of diagnosis is modified,
an additional covered cancer is diagnosed, or additional covered employment is identified), the
measures used to reconstruct the dose may not be applicable.

Information Used
Specific parameters were applied to available site records in order to assign organ dose based on

information in the External Dose Reconstruction \Intplementation Guideline’ and the Intemal
Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline.> The modeled organs were selected based on

Page 4 of 8


AGINAW NEWS

\Mauri¢e
dLakeshia

th
s the car
mnd fearing

the impact,
eat next to

ptal, but I
* Hamilton

dfor a mi-
facial cut.
teda were
ame best
three-year

ailton said.
ven though

x husband,
.they were
med of the

jon was a.
iho worked ~

‘time for

iworked-as
irestaurant
son at the
jus garage,
college, His
to keep his

Y CONTINUED FROM A1

Reports indicate the company
crushed radioactive compounds
there in the 1950s, and created
high levels of radioactive dust.
Saginaw resident Jack W. Ran-
ous worked for the company for 42
years, including eight as president.
Ranous, 79, said he was un-
aware the company processed ra-
dioactive chemicals, saying
workers were not trained to han-
dle such substances. .
Doctors diagnesed him with
cancer in 1994, but he said he does
not believe his stint working in the
factory caused his condition.

‘The illness has remained in re-
mission for two years, he said:

Meanwhile, SSP Associates, 2
Saginaw Township development
company, has submitted plans to
spend $5.5 million to build a two-
story, 60,000-square-foot medical
facility at the site.

It is unclear how the disclosure
might affect the project, said Wil-
liam L. Bailey, assistant to the city
manager.

‘Some cleanup occurred at ihe
site in the late 1980s, put “Pm not
sure to what extent,” he said.

SSP Associates is owned by Dr.
Sami] H. Shaheen Sr. The Sagi-
naw News could not reach him for
comment this morning.

“Baker Perkins, 1000 Hess, once
employed more than 1,000 workers
to manufacture equipment used in
the chemical-processing and oil-
refining industries before it closed
1987. B&P Process & Equipment

‘and Saginaw Industrial Machining

now operate ‘at the site.

_ Documents state that Baker
Perkins handled uranium in the
mid-1950s, and indicate some po-

tential for contamination. The Sag-

inaw News -could. not reach
executives for comment.
“Former worker Harold

Dycewicz, 72, of Saginaw said ru-
mors have spread among retirees
for about a year about exposure to

radioactive chemicals. ._ -
State Department of. ‘Environ-

pue Sfx |

NUCLEAR Rumors had spread

mental Quality officials are over-
seeing cleanup at Baker Perkins,
put it was not clear if they were
checking for radioactive material,
said Linda Brouillet, a district
supervisor.

No records are on file for Mitts
& Merrill, Brouillet said.
” Kevin W. Datte, the director of
environment health services for
the Saginaw County Department
of Public Health, learned of the
issue from a News reporter. me

Datte said he will now consider,
checking whether the situation
presents a public health risk. a

Fred Kelly is a staff writer for The
News. You can call him at 776-9685.

7 The Saginaw News, on this
page, promptly corrects its
errors of fact and responds to
requests for clarification.

errance J. Pippins, 25,
and Zollie L. Stewart Ii, 18,
‘oth of Saginaw, received dis-
missals from Saginaw County
District Judge Kyle Higgs
Tarrant on a charge of un-
armed robbery Aug. 6 be-
cause the vietim failed to
appear for a preliminary
hearing. Court records stated
that the crime occurred at In
& Out Party Shoppe, 3241 S.
Washington. However, the
pusiness’ owner said the
crime occurred outside and .
some distance from the store. -

About 25,000 drivers pass
and Bay intersection daily. A

‘Wednesday report stated an
incorrect figure. .

through the Tittabawassee _|.

Anna L. Accardi, 94+
Saginaw.
Giadys M.

Burk, 87, Ra-

_ leigh, N.C.
Wiliam P.

save OF

10" pr

Gough, 53. }

Wwe up
‘8 eq/
wens
Sag
aay
Be
tep
re,

ont


38

and only claim where the gentleman did die of lung
cancer. It appears that they've done different
calculations using the lung model versus the lymphatic

systems which they used or

There was only -- I guess when you read through
the report you're going to see that the internal dose
alone was determined to be only one Dose Reconstruction
to complete showing that just this lung model was all

they had to use for this particular person.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Both employees were in the same workplace, same
work environment, same time weighted averages within the

time of this testing. I guess I see really an

“inconsistency where one claim which had a lung cancer ‘and
also my father had a diagnosis of lung cancer. I have
copies of his medical reports that he has lung nodules,
which are lymphoma, into his lungs. And I'll have copies

of those too for you.

Also I have a copy of the Saginaw News article
dated September 7th, 2000. Reports indicate the company
crushed radioactive compounds there in the 1950s.

a of the organizatioa

was unaware of the process and stated that employees were

not trained in handling such substances. I am sure tnat

this is true. The organization did not train nor

document incidents as shown in the report for



44

transcript. You need to send that right back to me.

I'll also leave the record open for another 30
days, and during that time if you have anything else you
want to let me know, any other Exhibits; if you get home
and you realize, oh, I really meant to talk about x, Y, Z
and I completely forgot, give me a call, send me a
letter, send me a fax, and you have 30 days to do that.

And anything that you submit then will also be

included along with everything else in the file, the

10
11

12

transcript of this, all of the Exhibits.
And really anytime after that 30 days I can

make a Final Decision, and like I said, the Final

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Decision will be based upon everything that's already in
the record plus this hearing and anything else you submit
within that 30 days.

And it looks like we have more Exhibits that
have been marked.

Exhibit No. 9 is the Saginaw News article dated
September 7th, 2000.

HEARING REPRESENTATIV! A Federal

Register Notice dated May 28th, 2004.

That was Exhibit No. 10. And I think that's
it.
(Whereupon, Exhibit Nos. i

through 10 were marked and



ATTACHMENT D

OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

before the

FINAL ADJUDICATION BRANCH

of the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

_File Number:

Docket Numbers:

In the Matter of :

Place: Saginaw, Michigan

Date: July 22, 2008



m

mo 9 @ >

DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHMENTS

Analytical Data Sheet Baker Perkins

The Saginaw News article dated September 2, 2000
Diagram of Ko-Kneader machine

Deposition

Dose Reconstruction Finding

Dose Reconstruction Finding of the only paid claim from Baker
Perkins

Office of Compensation Analysis Support NIOSH claim information

Summary of NIOSH re-examination of Lymphoma Target Organ
Selection



19

this test, and I'm going to go through what some of these

problems will be, okay?

HEARING sSPRESENTATIVE Okay.

Number one, we don’t know

how much material was delivered to the site. We know
that it was at least one barrel. It could have been two,
but it could have been ten or it could have been 20. But
more importantly, we don't know how much material was

returned. You see, they don’t know how much those

10

11

12

barrels weighed.

I would assume today that under current

policies if you had a barrel of contaminated uranium sent _

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to your building, you would know what it weighed, and if
you did some mixing process that involved dust
distributing, that they would say to you, you better
collect that dust and put it back in that barrel and send
that back with it, so we better make sure we got it all
back.

Well, they don't know what they got back. They
don't even know how many barrels they sent. So there's a
great deal of question here as to whether or not: nuclear
material remained at that site after the test, and thus
the workers at that site may have suffered contamination

through an extended period of time indeed through the

entire period of employment.


NOV. 22.2885 4:12PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 ea2 1375 NU. ae tae

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
0) low?

of uranium. For inhalation intakes and subseq. determination of dose to the respiratory tract,
uranium metal dust is considered to be an insoluble (i.e., Absorption Type 5) material, Uranium
was assumed to be wranium-234 for internal dose assessment purposes. These are claimant-
favorable assumptions.

The estimated uranium inhalation rate was 8.1E+06 pCi/year (22192 pCi/day) during the
period of time that the AEC work was ongoing.” This value was ‘used in a computer code, the
Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (MBA), to calculate annual internal lung doses for
determination of probability of catisation. The IMBA-EXPERT program was used for this dose
reconstruction. The ICRP 66 lung model with default aerosol characteristics was assumed, in
conjunction with ICRP 68 metabolic models? Table 1 shows the intake scenario used to deter-
mine the annual lung dose due to inhalation, It was only necessary to consider +z
first year of covered employment to complete this dose reconstruction.

Table 1. Intake scenario used to determine annual doses from inhalation

Intake Period Ynhalation Intake Rate
(pCi/day)
January 1, 1956 — December 31, 1956 22192

The total lung dose was determined to be 1047.385 rem.

Dose from Radiological Incidents
Per the provisions in 42 CFR § 82.1 om, it was determined that an estimation of any

potential unrecorded dose from radiological incidents was not necessary in order to consider
the dose reconstruction complete. Because of this, no attempt has been made to reconstruct

potential dose from radiological incidents.

Summary

wee “-was assumed to have been exposed internally during his covered employ-
ment at Bakef-Perkins to an amount of radiation sufficient to result in a dose of 1047.385 rem to
the lung, Per 42 CFR. ph. 82,' NIOSH has assumed exposure conditions that maximize the
dose to the organ where the cancer originated. Information obtained through additional research
would not result in a higher dose to the organ where the cancer originated, and may in fact lower
the calculated dose to this organ. To expedite this claim, only the internal dose due to one year
of inhalation has been included in this dose reconstruction. The reported dose is a reasonable
estimateof *¥Y occupational radiation dose for claim determination purposes. —

Attachment 1 contains the IREP dose reconstruction summary sheet that will be used by the
Department of Labor to make the final probability of causation determination of the claim.

Page 6 of S


to his employment.

At this time, I have to Say something about the

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction.

NIOSH is given the full authority under the
regulations that govern the Act to conduct the Dose

Reconstruction used by the Department of Labor.

Iam therefore not in a position to discuss the
way in which NIOSH goes about preparing the Dose

Reconstruction report.

10

iL

12

I can discuss issues of a factual nature
regarding the information you provided to NIOSH, but I'm

not qualified to discuss the methodology employed by

14

is

16

17

18

19

20

21

25

“NIOSH in preparing the Dose Reconstruction report.

T am here to take your objections, enter them
into the Evidence of Record, but I am not authorized to
address NIOSH methodology.

T am now going to administer an oath to the
three of you.

So if you could all raise your right hands.
(Witnesses sworn.)

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE All xight.

We'll have the record reflect that

all answered

in the affirmative.

If you could all state your name ouc at a time,



even small amounts of these radionuclides have significantly increased the
probability if the development of a radiogenic cancer.

According to the NIOSH website only on paid claim has been listed this
claim used different dose exposure model. See Attachment G and F.
Attachment G shows that there has not been any paid claim which is false
Attachment F clearly shows that to a deficiency on the part of NIOSH for
the update of records.

l ask the Commission for Baker Perkins Company, Saginaw Michigan to be
placed as a SEC facility.

Respectfully Submitted

SEC Petitioner Class



we had this incident for four days, and sure, he may have
been in there grinding and chipping away with his little
respirator, but you know, it was just a short-term
exposure, and then we cleaned it up, we cleaned up the
equipment and that was the end of it, there's no problem
here; this is a much more serious matter.

If you were to say today that we had dust in
such quantities of orange oxide dust that we had to open

up our windows and doors and let it blow around the

10

12

12

place, I think you'd have the hazmat guys closing you
down like right now, okay? I think that would be a very

serious nuclear problem because this dust is in the area.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

“—Itis there where these men worked for at least 40 hours a © ~

week. They are exposed to it constantly and chronically.
So when you're going to do your Dose
Reconstruction, you can't just take this limited event
and figure the matter ended on the 18th. This dust was
in that building; they were ingesting it, they were
breathing it, they were next to it; likely, I'd say more

likely as not that that stuff is still in that suilding

today.
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Does tne
building still exist?

Yeah, there's a building

there, yeah. They use it as a warehouse.



16

and documents about Baker Perkins about the site that I
went to, and they said that in here he says, well, they
mixed uranium trioxide, orange oxide is what it was
identified as, in their KO-Kneader on May 15th through --
14th through 18th.

Now, apparently he never went to the site. He
conducted a telephone interview of a former Baker Perkins
Employee who joined the company in the mid-70s, which was

nearly 20 years after this event.

10

11

12

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE All right.

And he sent a contact

report, which I'll go into. He interviewed him and asked

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

“him, well, what happened 20 years before you were

employed? And the guy said basically, well, I don't
know; okay, is essentially it. He wasn't there.

But he evidently looked at something and he
concluded that the short durations of the test just for
four days, and evidence of equipment clean up, and I
emphasize equipment cleanup, in what we're going to refer
to is, in this report here, the analytical data sheet,
you're talking about the mixers; this large ssachine I
showed you.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.

The ‘potential fcr residual

radioactive contamination in excess of the current vUm



24

during calibration of Omega feeder, material fed through
feeder and dropped into cardboard container from sample
chute. Only visible dust was when box was removed and
empty.

So what they did was they said well, we got to
get it out of the machine now. So they put it into a
cardboard box. Would putting orange oxide today be
considered appropriate to dump it into a cardboard box on

the floor of a factory? Okay? And apparently dust was

10

12

12

in there.

Okay, let's move on to sample 6908: Water line

was plugged after a few minutes of operating time and_the

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

" water supply was cut off. “Dry material dropped into

product drum at discharge, causing considerable dust.

Let's look at A, same as luring
second test run. Some ‘dusting as wet material falls into
drum on top of dry materials. Vacuum hose from Spencer
inserted in a drum to reduce amount of escaping dust.
Water line plugged again towards end of sampling period
(simultaneous with test period) and more dry material
dropped from barrel resulting in more dust.

Once again, we have -- but at this poiat we
have an introduction of a vacuum system to try to vacuum
this machine out. Now we have HEPA filters tu protect

our children from pet hair and dander and who knows what



12

The decontamination of the

equipment was conducted on May 15th and

18th at 19:56 and

the cleaning included chipping, power-washing, brushing,

steaming, food and air monitoring across the five day

period.

Well, we took a look at this,
evidence we have is a flow meter report
the activities, and this is included in

here that we're going to be giving you,

and the only
that describes
this document

which will

10

11

12

include the letter to Gary Lobster, who
the City of Saginaw where Baker Perkins

it includes a report frot who

was the Mayor of
is located, and

conducted an

“13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

interview with a Baker Perkins Employee

sed

and di

what happened at Baker Perkins, and that information was

included in this battle assessment; that was then used to

determine Dose Reconstruction.

And I'd like to comment on some of this to

point out where I feel that they did not correctly

interpret it, okay?

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE

Okay

Lets move on with this,

and the first thing I want you to look at, ane ¢ don't

know if you want me to give you these things now or~:

later.

HEARING REPRESENTATIV!

Jow, woulda he



(4)

" ANALYTICAL DATA St

ANALYTICAL DEPT, ~ HEALTH ANO SAFETY DIVISION

NO

“i
1956 Industrial Hygione or Medical Dept. Analytical Chemistry Section:
\ Hepp 824. Sample Nos 6 Date Collected 5/18 _ by CES Route to__.CES. Date Recaived__fe22e58 by. ab
Lovation._/KER“PERKING ——alype of Sample_oic dust Analyzed for F Alpha2ed! Date Reported__Be22066 0 by,
Remarks SAGINAW, DNICHIGAN U Beta Mathod of Analyst ; L .
Necontanination No, Ra oountar2 _ bj 2
=~ oO; pH Counting Data; . . :
Be Th BKGD__sld_ofmin _ GEO___44%
Seen [ee a TET ee ee ee ea
_.5938 BZ Usiny pneumatic powered circular 202 | 3 06 | 52 1.14 27 068 1809
brush to clean screw, Dust-foe rés~ :
— pirator and goggles worn,
6939 0944 Ga During power brush cleaning, 202 | 15 23: 32 O21 152 0}9 1647
ee 940, apanu Gi Sane as 6939 +02 | 25 25 52. Dalb 2135.14 1384
(this was probably the dustiest of the
— decontamination jobs. Doors and windows
ae Were Opened and 'personnelwore respirators
S941 2__Sample of exhaust alz from Spencer 202 | 2 202 18 16 1.01 “164
_ . portable ‘vacuum, :
$942 1235 GA Steaming area during steam cleaning 202 | 22 «44 | ao Del 34,97 258
of "K" barrel, :
6943 L447 GA During steaming of Omega feeder, 202 | 20 4 $2. 2:45 12.87 104
OUSTRISUTIONS

LANALYTICAL LAHOMAT
2ANDUSTRIAL MYGleWe

‘ORY OCPARTMENT (AnconD cory)
OLPARTMENT

3-MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

A-DIRECTOR OF HEALTH G SAFETY DIVISION

8547 °


46

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before

In the matter of:
File Number:

Docket Numbers:

Place: Saginaw, Michigan
Date: July 22, 2008

were held as therein appears, and that this is the

original transcript thereof for the files of the U.S.

Department of Labor, Final Adjudication Branch.



Nov.22.2005 4:12PM DEPT OF LABOR 216 842 1375 We. de Fea

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
EG Lowe He

Refe ces ,

1, 42 CFR § 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal
Register/Vol.67, No, $5/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22314,

2. 42 CFR § 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal
Register/Vol.67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22296.

3. ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universitles Team), ORAUT-OTIB-0005, Technical
Information Bulletin: IMBA Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model
Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev 0] PC-3, October 29, 2004.

4, “NIOSH, (2002) Jnternal Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rey 0, OCAS-
1G-002, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

5. ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), ORAUT-OTIB-0004, Technical

Information Bulletin: Technical Basis for Estimating the Maximum Plausible Dose to
Workers at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities, Rev 02, December 4, 2003.

Pago 7 of 8


32

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

So this, I think that the

assessment of the Battelle Reconstruction and the
individual and calling up the old timer who was employed
in 1970, 20 years after the event, and not really looking
at what this document means, shows that there was an
error in the assessment that they made in the Dose
Reconstruction; that this Dose Reconstruction should

assume a intense exposure to nuclear material over an

10

11

12

extended period of time.

it would be until 1968

when he left the facility. Not just a short-term

447

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

éxposure and then assuming some ingestion that sort of
worked its way through over a 20-some year period, but

may or may not have been, or was not as likely to have
caused it as we would have thought.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Okay.

That's all I have to say

now. I may wish to add more later.

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE) Okay, thank

Just a coupie of

you.

comments, I work for a community college. i'ma
manufacturing engineer up there. I teach classes there.

I have an opportunity to visit a company thac uses



34

Just a comment that, you

know, this process that was there is not just a little,

2

3 simple little one- or two-day event.

4 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.

5 That there was much more
6 to this than -- especially what that document shows you

7 what went on. I'll have some other comments a little

8 later.

9 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE : Okay, thank

10 you.
a1 I guess I'd just like to clarify
12 some inconsistencies that were in the reports, and I do

~ 13 have copies for you. - - - a

14 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Good.

15 I'd just like to have this on

16 the record.

17 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE dkay.

18 You have a packet right before
19 you there, dear.

20 HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Great.
21 The report uatea 2-5-9095, 1
22 understand there were two Dose Reconstructions done on my
23 father. The ones on 2-5-05 and then there was one done
24 on 9-14-07.

25

HEARING REPRESENTATIVE Right.



ATTACHMENT C

http://www. bphs.net/History OfK ey Businesses/Chemical/images/Saginaw18.jpg 8/26/2008